March 7, 2008

Obama: "This War Was Unwise..."

Robert Reich: "Will Hillary Clinton Spoil the Party?"

Hillary has said that McCain would be a better president than Obama -- this kind of cynical approach turns people away from politics.

I'm thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats' two candidates. But I'm also becoming anxious at the prospect of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of them entering the White House in January of 2009.

Is Hillary Clinton’s willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had Hillary Clinton's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't.

This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.

And while I can understand her decision -- bolstered by yesterday's results -- to fight on in this primary election, the reality is that she can only win by convincing large numbers of superdelegates to join her and re-engineering the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage, and then taking the fight all the way to the convention in August -- which if she gets that far, will be one of the most divisive in forty years.

I suppose I should not be surprised. If Hillary Clinton has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was Hillary Clinton who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was Hillary Clinton who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of Hillary Clinton's campaign.

The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nation’s youth -- been so inspired.

The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. Hillary Clinton's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.

Robert Reich is professor of public policy at the Richard and Rhoda Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley. He was secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.

'Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac'

This column was written by Jonathan Chait |The New Republic

The morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.

That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.

Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.

What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.

Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?

An Open Letter to Governor Bill Richardson (And any other democratic party 'leader')

Governor Richardson,

I am as dismayed at your lack of action this week, as I was impressed by your courageous statements on 'Face the Nation' last Sunday - where you were clear that 'the candidate with the most delegates on Wednesday should be the nominee' and yet, not a word from you this week. Nothing, despite Senator Obama's overwhelming delegate lead.

All the while, the Clinton campaign continues to employ a strategy of undermining Senator Obama with racist, ethnic identity fear mongering that the Republicans haven't even gone near. Our entire party should be ashamed that the Clintons are part of 'us.'

None of you, the party leadership, have spoken out and publicly condemned this well-documented Clinton strategy, or their continued willingness and attempts to secure this nomination against the expressed will of the voters.

I've been active in democratic politics for nearly forty years, and I am appalled at the lack of moral courage of MY party. If we - you, all of us, keep this up - the party will split for good, as it probably should.

Once again, I implore you to take action as a respected leader of this party.

Respectfully,

zjm

Please write your own letter, or sign you name to this one and email Governor Richardson on the form at this site: http://www.governor.state.nm.us/email.php?mm=6&type=opinion

A Call to All Voters of every Party -

Please write, call and email the Democratic National Committee - ask them why they are not publicly condemning the Clinton campaign strategy of racist, ethnic identity fear mongering as a way of discrediting Senator Barack Obama.

Main Phone Number:
202-863-8000

Mailing Address:
Democratic National Committee
430 S. Capitol St. SE
Washington, DC 20003

Email

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/contact

If Obama's Advisor Should Have Resigned for Calling Hillary a 'Monster...'

...as the Clinton campaign demanded, so too, should Hillary disqualify herself as a fit candidate for the Presidency...

1. For exploiting the politics of race, ethnic identity, and fear as a means of securing the democratic nomination.

2. For her willingness to do and say anything to win this nomination, including asking the democratic party to nominate her even if she is not the chosen candidate of the voters (this was, after all, the context in which the Obama advisor referred to her as a 'monster')

Hey, if the shoe fits...

ZJM

'On the Red Phone' by Seinfeld Writer and Creator, Larry David


Here's an idea for an Obama ad: a montage of Clinton's Sybillish personalities that have surfaced during the campaign with a solemn voiceover at the end saying, "Does anyone want this nut answering the phone?"

How is it that she became the one who's perceived as more equipped to answer that 3 a.m. call than the unflappable Obama? He, with the ice in his veins, who doesn't panic when he's losing or get too giddy when he's winning, who's as comfortable in his own skin as she's uncomfortable in hers. There have been times in this campaign when she seemed so unhinged that I worried she'd actually kill herself if she lost. Every day, she reminds me more and more of Adele H., who also had an obsession that drove her insane.

A few weeks ago, I started to feel sorry for her. Oh Christ, let her win already...Who cares...It's not worth it. There's not that much difference between them. She can have it. Anything to avoid watching her descend into madness. So I switched. I started rooting for her. It wasn't that hard. Compromise comes easy to me. I was on board.

And then I saw the ad.

I watched, transfixed, as she took the 3 a.m. call...and I was afraid...very afraid. Suddenly, I realized the last thing this country needs is that woman anywhere near a phone. I don't care if it's 3 a.m. or 10 p.m. or any other time. I don't want her talking to Putin, I don't want her talking to Kim Jong Il, I don't want her talking to my nephew. She needs a long rest. She needs to put on a sarong and some sun block and get away from things for a while, a nice beach somewhere -- somewhere far away, where there are...no phones.

Larry David Bio

March 6, 2008

Barack Obama's February haul: $55 million

by John McCormick

Sen. Barack Obama raised $55 million in February, a stunning total that his campaign hopes will breathe fresh momentum into his presidential bid following losses in three of four nominating contests earlier this week.

The Tribune has learned the Illinois Democrat raised the amount in an effort that shatters the record for money raised by a presidential campaign in a single month.

The total came from contributions from nearly three-quarters of a million donors, including about 385,000 who were donating for the first time. Virtually all of the money -- $45 million – was raised online.

Late last month, Sen. Hillary Clinton touted news that she raised $35 million in February and Obama's campaign responded coyly, saying only that it would raise "considerably more."

The Tribune reported at the time that members of Obama's finance committee had heard the monthly total could hit $50 million, a sum that would have been about half of what he raised during all of 2007.

Additional details are expected to be released this afternoon, but the campaign said more than 90 percent of the online donations in February were for $100 or less.

Obama's campaign had previously reported that it has received contributions from more than 1 million donors since the presidential campaign started.

With the primary campaign now expected to drag well into the spring, the money will be needed with campaigning still possible for a dozen nominating contests between now and early June.

Nevada Superdelegate Declares for Obama


Teresa Benitez-Thompson, the First Vice Chair of the Nevada State Democratic Party, and a superdelegate from Nevada announced she is supporting Senator Barack Obama for President today, citing his ability to bring new voters into the Democratic Party:

“This year, Democrats are graced with the opportunity to choose among excellent candidates for our nation’s highest office. After careful thought, it is my honor today to endorse Sen. Barack Obama who, day by day and state by state, is challenging politics as usual and engaging so many new, diverse, Democratic voters. These new voters will propel Sen. Obama to victory in November and help elect great Democrats at the state and local level.”

Key West Virginia Superdelegate for Obama


By Jonathan Allen, CQ Staff

Barack Obama will pick up an important industrial state endorsement from veteran Rep. Nick J. Rahall II before the May 13 West Virginia primary.

Rahall told CQ Politics Thursday that he privately made his commitment to Obama about 10 days ago and will officially endorse the delegate leader in the Democratic presidential primary sometime before voters in his state go to the polls.

“The new voters he has brought to the process this year and the new direction, in my opinion, add up to what our country needs,” Rahall said.

Obama has struggled to win the support of the type of working-class white voters who populate much of Rahall’s 3rd district in the southern portion of the state. In the Ohio primary on Tuesday, many of them backed Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Rahall acknowledged that his pick may be out of step with the leanings of the Democratic voters in his district.“I recognize this may not be a popular decision in my district,” he said. The district has the third‑lowest median income in the country.

As a member of the House, Rahall is one of the 795 “superdelegates” who are not forced to pledge their support to any candidate at the Democratic convention. West Virginia has 28 pledged delegates and 11 unpledged, including Rahall.

Obama Gains Vermont Superdelegate


Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 6, 2008 12:09 PM

Despite his losses on Tuesday, Barack Obama continues to pick up support from superdelegates, narrowing the gap with Hillary Clinton among the group who could decide the Democratic nominee.

The latest is Ian Carleton, chairman of the state Democratic Party in Vermont, the only state Obama won on Tuesday.

"Vermonters overwhelmingly embraced Senator Obama's message of hope and change in our state's primary earlier this week, and so it is with great excitement and optimism that I pledge my support for Barack Obama," Carleton, a Burlington lawyer, said in a statement issued by the Obama campaign.

"Since the very beginning of his campaign I, along with so many Vermonters, have been deeply moved by Senator Obama's commitment to moving beyond the negative partisan rhetoric that has sadly characterized our nation's politics for so long. His leadership and vision for a more productive and decent future is exactly what this nation needs at this moment in history."

Obama leads among pledged delegates -- those decided by primaries and caucuses -- but the Obama and Clinton campaigns agree that neither will reach the magic 2,025 number without the superdelegates, nearly 800 elected officials, party leaders, and others who are free agents and can pick whichever candidate they want. About 270 of them are still uncommitted, according to the Associated Press.

Hillary’s New Math Problem -Tuesday's big wins? The delegate calculus just got worse.

Newsweek
Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive | Updated: 6:48 PM ET Mar 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton won big victories Tuesday night in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But she's now even further behind in the race for the Democratic nomination. How could that be? Math. It's relentless.

To beat Barack Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton now needs even bigger margins in the 12 remaining primaries than she needed when I ran the numbers on Monday--an average of 23 points, which is more than double what she received in Ohio.

Superdelegates won't help Clinton if she cannot erase Obama's lead among pledged delegates, which now stands at roughly 134. Caucus results from Texas aren't complete, but Clinton will probably net about 10 delegates out of March 4. That's 10 down, 134 to go. Good luck.

I've asked several prominent uncommitted superdelegates if there's any chance they would reverse the will of Democratic voters. They all say no. It would shatter young people and destroy the party.

Hillary's only hope lies in the popular vote-a yardstick on which she now trails Obama by about 600,000 votes. Should she end the primary season in June with a lead in popular votes, she could get a hearing from uncommitted superdelegates for all the other arguments that she would make a stronger nominee. (Wins the big states, etc.). If she loses both the pledged delegate count and the popular vote, no argument will cause the superdelegates to disenfranchise millions of Democratic voters. It will be over.

Projecting popular votes precisely is impossible because there's no way to calculate turnout. But Clinton would likely need do-overs in Michigan and Florida (whose January primaries didn't count because they broke Democratic Party rules). But even this probably wouldn't give her the necessary popular vote margins.

Remember, Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot when voters there went to the polls. Even if he's trounced there (and Michigan, won by Jesse Jackson in 1988, has a large African-American vote in its primary), Obama would still win hundreds of thousands of popular votes. This is also an argument for why Obama may end up preferring a primary to a caucus in Michigan. (Obama has done better in caucuses).

Florida, with its heavy population of elderly and Jewish voters, might be a better place for Hillary to close the popular vote gap. But even if you assume she does five points better than her double-digit win there in the meaningless February primary (where no one campaigned), she would still fall short.

I'm no good at math, but with the help of "Slate’s Delegate Calculator" I've once again scoped out the rest of the primaries. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week. That's 12 victories in a row, bigger in total than Obama's run of 11 straight. And this time I've assigned her even larger margins than I did before in Wyoming, North Carolina, Indiana and Kentucky.

So here we go again:

Let's assume that on Saturday in Wyoming, Hillary's March 4 momentum gives her an Ohio-style 10-point win, confounding every expectation. Next Tuesday in Mississippi, where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary, she shocks the political world by again winning 55-45.

Then on April 22, the big one-Pennsylvania-and it's a Hillary blow-out: 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 3 and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6. The Hoosiers go for Hillary 55-45 and the same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state. Enough blacks desert Obama to give North Carolina to Hillary in another big win, 55-45, netting her seven more delegates.

May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. Another 60-40 landslide on May 20 in Kentucky nets her 11 more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Ooops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3 and the scheduled primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates.

Given that I've put not a thumb but my whole fist on the scale, this fanciful calculation gives Hillary the lead, right? Actually, it makes the score 1,625 to 1,584 for Obama. A margin of 39 pledged delegates may not seem like much, but remember, the chances of Obama losing state after state by 20-point margins are slim to none.

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. What happens then? Will Democrats come together before the Denver Convention opens in late August?

We know that Hillary is unlikely to quit. This will leave it up to the superdelegates to figure out how to settle on a nominee. With 205 already committed to Obama, he would need another 200 uncommitted superdelegates to get to the magic number of 2025 delegates needed to nominate. But that's only under my crazy pro-Hillary projections. More likely, Obama would need about 50-100 of the approximately 500 uncommitted superdelegates, which shouldn't be too difficult.

But let's say all the weeks of negative feeling have taken a toll. Let's say that Clinton supporters are feeling embittered and inclined to sit on their hands. It's not too hard to imagine prominent superdelegates asking Obama to consider putting Hillary on the ticket.

This might be the wrong move for him. A national security choice like Sen. Jim Webb, former Sen. Sam Nunn or retired Gen. Anthony Zinni could make more sense. But if Obama did ask Clinton, don't assume she would say no just because she has, well, already served as de facto vice president for eight years under her husband. (Sorry, Al).

In fact, she would probably say yes. When there's a good chance to win, almost no one has ever said no. (Colin Powell is the exception). In 1960, when the vice-presidency was worth a lot less, Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson gave up his powerful position to run with John F. Kennedy.

How about Clinton-Obama? Nope. The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how big March 4 was for them. How close the race is. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator. Again.

Obama's Compelling Argument to Super Delegates


Posted by: Matt Lewis at 1:29 PM

While Hillary Clinton has a good argument to make to the super delegates, so too, does Obama.

GOP insiders -- who are focused on the upcoming Congressional elections -- tell me they are literally praying Hillary is the nominee. This, of course, is because Hillary would presumably drag down other Democratic candidates in the states.

Unfortunately, the presidential race has almost completely overshadowed the importance of congressional elections. Keep in mind that regaining the Senate -- or at least, limiting the number of Democrats in the Senate -- is crucial when it comes to the appointment of Supreme Court Judges.

While these Republicans are convinced Hillary would be great for Republican House and Senate prospects, their problem with Obama is simply that he's unpredictable. They aren't sure what kind of coattails he might have, and not knowing what to expect is perhaps the scariest thing of all for political operatives ...

Unlike Hillary, Obama can make the argument to super delegates that if he's the nominee, Democrats will pick up seats in the House and Senate (or at least, not lose them).

Rolling Stone Endorses Obama


A New Hope

JANN S. WENNER | Posted Mar 20, 2008 3:00 PM

The tides of history are rising higher and faster these days. Read them right and ride them, or be crushed. And then along comes Barack Obama, with the kinds of gifts that appear in politics but once every few generations. There is a sense of dignity, even majesty, about him, and underneath that ease lies a resolute discipline. It's not just that he is eloquent — with that ability to speak both to you and to speak for you — it's that he has a quality of thinking and intellectual and emotional honesty that is extraordinary.

I first learned of Barack Obama from a man who was at the highest level of George W. Bush's political organization through two presidential campaigns. He described the first-term senator from Illinois as "a walking hope machine" and told me that he would not work for any Republican candidate in 2008 if Obama was nominated. He challenged me to read Obama's autobiography, Dreams From My Father.

The book was a revelation. Here was a man whose honesty about himself and understanding of the human condition are both deep and compassionate. Born to a white mother and an African father, he was raised in multiracial Hawaii and for several years in Indonesia. He drifted through some druggy teenage years — no apologies! — before emerging as a star at Harvard Law School. He chose to work as a community organizer in the projects of Chicago rather than join the wealthy insider world of corporate law. And as a young adult, he searched, in the distant villages of Kenya, for the father and family he never knew.

As I read all this, so elegantly written, my mind kept rolling over: Might it be possible? Is there some fate by which we could have this man as president of the United States?

Throughout the primaries, and during a visit he paid to our offices, we have come to know Barack Obama, his toughness and his grace. He would not be intimidated, and he declined to back down, when Senator Clinton called him "frankly, naive" for his willingness to meet leaders of hostile nations. When one of her top campaign officials tried to smear him for his earlier drug use, he did not equivocate or backtrack. On the matter of experience and capability, he has run an impressive, nearly flawless campaign — one that whupped America's most hard-boiled political infighters. Indeed, Obama was far more prepared to run a presidential campaign — from Day One — than Senator Clinton. And at no point did he go negative with personal attacks or character assassination; as much as they might have been justified, they didn't even seem tempting to him.

Obama has emerged by displaying precisely the kind of character and judgment we need in a president: renouncing the politics of fear, speaking frankly on the most pressing issues facing the country and sticking to his principles. He recognizes that running for president is an opportunity to inspire an entire nation.

All this was made clearer by the contrast with Hillary Clinton, a capable and personable senator who has run the kind of campaign that reminds us of what makes us so discouraged about our politics. Her campaign certainly proved her experience didn't count for much: She was a bad manager and a bad strategist who naturally and easily engaged in the politics of distraction, trivialization and personal attack. She never convinced us that her vote for the war in Iraq was anything other than a strategic political calculation that placed her presidential ambitions above the horrifying consequences of a war. Her calibrated course corrections over the past three years were painful. Like John Kerry — who also voted for the war while planning a presidential run — it helped cost her that goal.

Although Obama declined to attack her personally for her vote for the war in Iraq, he did call it, devastatingly enough, a clear demonstration of her so-called experience and "judgment." He has also spoken forcefully about the need to break the grip of lobbyists — at a time when Clinton is the largest recipient of drug-company donations of anyone in Congress. Clinton could not address this issue at all, and neither will John McCain, who is equally a player in Washington's lobbyist culture.

Obama also denounced the Republican campaign of fear. Early in the campaign, John Edwards took the lead, calling the War on Terror a campaign slogan, not a policy. Obama rejected the subtle imagery of false patriotism by not wearing a flag pin in his lapel, and he dismissed the broader notion that the Democratic Party had to find a way to buy into this entire load of fear-mongering War on Terror bullshit — to out-Republican the Republicans — and thus become, in his description of Hillary Clinton's macho posturing on foreign policy, little more than "Bush-Cheney lite."

The similarities between John Kennedy and Barack Obama come to mind easily: the youth, the magnetism, the natural grace, the eloquence, the wit, the intelligence, the hope of a new generation.

But it might be more to the point to view Obama as Lincolnesque in his own origins, his sobriety and what history now demands.

We have a deeply divided nation, driven apart by economic policies that have deliberately created the largest income disparities in our history, with stunning tax breaks for the wealthiest and subsidies for giant industries. The income of the average citizen is stagnant, and his quality of life continues to slowly erode from inflation.

We are embittered and hobbled by the unnecessary and failed war in Iraq. We have been worn down by long years of fear- and hate-filled political strategies, assaults on constitutional freedoms, and levels of greed and cynicism, that — once seen for what they are — no people of moral values or ethics can tolerate.

A new president must heal these divides, must at long last face the hypocrisy and inequity of unprecedented government handouts to oil giants, hedge-fund barons, agriculture combines and drug companies. At the same time, the new president must transform our lethal energy economy — replacing oil and coal and the ethanol fraud with green alternatives and strict rain-forest preservation and tough international standards — before the planet becomes inhospitable for most human life. Although Obama has been slow to address global warming, I feel confident that his intelligence and morality will lead him clearly on this issue.

We need to recover the spiritual and moral direction that should describe our country and ourselves. We see this in Obama, and we see the promise he represents to bring factions together, to achieve again the unity that drives great change and faces difficult, and inconvenient, truths and peril.

We need to send a message to ourselves and to the world that we truly do stand for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And in electing an African-American, we also profoundly renounce an ugliness and violence in our national character that have been further stoked by our president in these last eight years.

Like Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama challenges America to rise up, to do what so many of us long to do: to summon "the better angels of our nature."

The Machinery of Hope: Inside the grass-roots field operation of Barack Obama, who is transforming the way political campaigns are run


In the process, the Obama campaign has shattered the top-down, command-and-control, broadcast-TV model that has dominated American politics since the early 1960s. "They have taken the bottom-up campaign and absolutely perfected it," says Joe Trippi, who masterminded Dean's Internet campaign in 2004. "It's light-years ahead of where we were four years ago. They'll have 100,000 people in a state who have signed up on their Web site and put in their zip code. Now, paid organizers can get in touch with people at the precinct level and help them build the organization bottom up. That's never happened before. It never was possible before."..."We're seeing the last time a top-down campaign has a chance to win it," says Trippi. "There won't be another campaign that makes the same mistake the Clintons made of being dependent on big donors and insiders. It's not going to work ever again." (Read the entire article)

March 5, 2008

3 more superdelegates endorse Obama

| The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Published on: 03/05/08
Georgia Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd
has endorsed Barack Obama for president, giving the Illinois senator another Georgia superdelegate vote.

Kidd, who had remained neutral in the race between Obama and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, said Wednesday that she was impressed with Obama's grassroots organizing in Georgia.

"In Georgia, we're making grassroots voter contact our top priority in 2008, and I'm convinced that Senator Obama shares our dedication to neighbor-to-neighbor contact," Kidd said. "I strongly believe that having Senator Obama as our nominee puts Georgia into play, and I know that, as the nominee, he will invest in our efforts to turn Georgia blue this year."

Obama now has the support of seven of Georgia's 13 superdelegates: U.S. Reps. David Scott, John Lewis, John Barrow, Sanford Bishop and Hank Johnson, along with DNC member Mary Long, who endorsed Obama on Tuesday. Clinton has the support of Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond and DNC members Carole Dabbs and Lonnie Plott.

Remaining undecided are former President Jimmy Carter, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall and DNC member Richard Ray. A spokeswoman for Carter told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that he will remain neutral. Ray and Marshall were not immediately available for comment Wednesday.


Dayton Mayor Endorses Barack Obama

03/05/2008 10:40:21

DAYTON, Ohio -- Mirroring the unofficial results of the Democratic Presidential race in Montgomery County, Dayton Mayor Rhine McLin today announced her endorsement of Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

Despite a win statewide by New York Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, in Montgomery County, the results told a different tale with Obama beating Clinton by over 10,000 votes.

In a morning interview on CNN, McLin said the decision of Dayton and Montgomery County voters would determine how she used her superdelegate vote. McLin said she was impressed with Ohio's apparent record voter turnout.
© Copyright WHIO radio news


Austin
, TX Today, Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair and Superdelegate Roy Laverne Brooks endorsed Barack Obama. Her statement is below.

“As the current Vice Chair of the Texas Democratic Party, I’ve worked for more than 20 years within this structure to make a difference in the lives of those who have needed it the most, the average working, middle and lower income people of our state and our country.

“Having worked as a hospital and hospice Chaplain, I have seen firsthand the sorrow felt by families torn by the loss of loved ones and burdened by unaffordable health care. Many working 10 to 12 hours a day, 6 to 7 days a week, and still couldn’t keep up with rising health care costs. In working as a Chaplain, as a teacher, social worker, as a representative of the ideals that attracted me and many others to this party, I believe we must dream and desire better for our communities.

“I have listened to the words of many seeking to lead this Party and to lead this nation and I believe that the words, sincerity, vision and actions of Sen. Barack Obama prove he is the best candidate to lead our nation. Senator Barack Obama has gained my trust in that he, like I, seek to bring a better life to our communities. As I strive to make this a better place for future generations, I stand for a system of inclusion, a system of change and most of all a system of fairness and equality. Senator Obama will provide affordable health care for all Americans, end the war in Iraq and provide the care our veterans deserve, and I am proud to support him today.”

A Human Eclipse of the Soul


phot0 by David Turnley

"The world is watching what we do here," Obama said in a speech in San Antonio last night. "The world is paying attention to how we conduct ourselves. What will we they see? What will we tell them? What will we show them?"

The problem with icebergs for anyone navigating a ship is that eighty percent of the mass is below the surface of the water. Like the captain of the Titanic learned the hard way - proceed at full steam through uncharted waters full of icebergs, and you die. This historical lesson speaks of what last night's primary election analysis does not tell you.

Last night was a referendum on the politics of fear, race, and ethnicity - a referendum that won in three states and lost in another. It was a contest between Barack Obama's continuing call to what is best in us, and Hillary Clinton's appeal to the darker demons of our nature.

If the Democratic National Committee had any shred of moral barometer and courage -

- The DNC would have disqualified Hillary as a presidential candidate after the South Carolina primary for her campaign's injection of race and fear into the contest.

- The DNC would have publicly called for an investigation into the circulation of a photo of Barack Obama in traditional Muslim dress that was linked to the Clinton campaign, along with stories of Clinton campaign workers referring to 'Obama' as 'Osama' in campaign phone calls.

- The DNC would have called her on the carpet for her 60 minutes interview where she fed into the anti-Muslim smear campaign going on in this country.

- The DNC would have condemned her 3 AM Red Phone Ad full of dark and foreboding images of danger and menace, ending with Hillary lit in white light.

- The DNC would call this primary and caucus process to a close, today, and award the nomination to candidate, Barack Obama, who has and will have, more pledged delegates and votes. This is called democracy.

Last week, I watched the lunar eclipse, moved by the beauty of the earth's shadow lighting the moon in yet another tone. Last week, I also watched shadows of another kind, those that block the light, hope, and possibility we humans need.

So if you woke up this morning with a sick feeling in your gut, this is good thing, for it is evidence that you are still on the light side of the human eclipse of the soul -

ZJM

Clinton's 'Comeback kid' narrative ignores basic math

Posted: March 05, 2008, 10:37 AM by Shane Dingman

Yesterday politopundits everywhere (many of dubious vintage) predicted some sort of tie between U.S. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont. In the end, Clinton pulled off a narrow win in Texas, slightly less narrow in Ohio and Rhode Island and Obama won uber-liberal Vermont.

What does that leave the candidates with? Let's go with CNN:
Needed to Win = 2,025
Candidate Pledged Superdelegates Total
Obama 1257 194 1451
Clinton 1127 238 1365
That's a difference of 130 pledged delegates. Among the super delegates, who can change their vote at any time, the number is murkier, so let's leave it aside at the moment. Yesterday TNR pointed out what Hillary needed to do to erase her deficit, and it looked bad.
611 pledged delegates remain to be fought over in nine future votes (there are 12 actual states or territories remaining, with some multi-state votes on the docket).

The biggest prizes? The April 22 poll in Pennsylvania with 158 pledged delegates on the line. Then Indiana (72) and North Carolina (115) on May 6.

These two are splitting the vote in most of their contests, which means in a contest like Ohio where Clinton won, and is making great hay of the victory, she had a mere net gain of 16 pledged delegates. In Texas, the split primary/caucus means her net gain could be in the single digits.
And yet look at how this "swing" is covered at the LA Times:
Nor could they have projected more dramatically different auras. Hillary Clinton -- having proved that, like her husband, she seems to perform best when she's on the ropes -- beamed in Ohio as she celebrated her impressive victory in that state's primary.

The popular vote, meanwhile favours Obama, slightly:

Popular Vote: Obama — 12,946,615 Clinton — 12,363,897
Popular Vote (counting Florida): Obama — 13,522,829 Clinton — 13,234,883
At the NYTimes blog The Caucus, even though that paper's editorial board endorsed Clinton, had a more subdued take Tuesday:
For Mrs. Clinton, the contest now “is not so much against Mr. Obama as it is against a Democratic Party establishment that had once been ready to coalesce behind her but has been drifting toward Mr. Obama.”
Mr. Obama, the winner in Vermont, also appeared via satellite on “Today.” He criticized Mrs. Clinton for “cherry-picking” the states that she felt were most important to win throughout the campaign, and pointed to the fact that he’s won more states overall. His rival “barely dented” his lead in the delegate count last night, he said.
So why is Clinton, as well as some members of the media, so confident? Well, as ABC'S Jake Tapper points out:
In talking points circulated late last night, the Clinton campaign acknowledges that it can never overtake Obama with pledged delegates, and asserts that it intends to overtake him with the support of superdelegates.

"We plan on gaining pledged delegates and closing the Obama camp’s lead by the end of the nominating process," the Clinton memo says. "When it comes to pledged delegates, we’ll be competitive."

At Time Magazine's Swampland blog Ana Maria Cox called the spin before it really began this morning:
10:58 PM Tomorrow's HRC spin, tonight: "He didn't close tonight and that means he can't close. We can pull this out." Tomorrow's Obama spin, tonight: "They did little to close the delegate count, and that's what this is about."
This same narrative is repeated at the Chicago Tribune, On Daily Kos (who puts the Texas delegate split even tighter than Ohio's), At Mother Jones, at the Huffington Post, at the National Journal's Hotline, at Newsweek, at Slate. Really, all over the place as you can see on RealClear Politics morning summary.
But The Atlantic Monthly's Marc Ambinder's thoughts really ought to be the last word on Tuesday night... that for Hillary these victories are wonderful for her and her campaign staff, but they are too little, too late:

It is a sad irony or perhaps cosmic justice: just as Hillary Clinton succeeded in reforming her coalition -- older voters, working class women, self-identified Democrats, Latinos, the less affluent, the less educated -- just as she's succeeded in raising doubts about the presumptive Democratic nominee, the claws that are the Democratic rules tightened, perhaps inescapably -- in that she cannot escape from them. Forget about momentum. Or press coverage. Or arguments. Or moral claims to this or that. Forget about the external things that all of us in the media normally cover.

As the calendar progress, the reality is that the rules have become the controlling legal authority. When folks say "this ain't over for a while," they don't have a predicate. Perhaps the scrutiny on Obama will increase and that he will crash and that 30% of his superdelegates will crash and that 30% of his pledged delegates will defect and that 60% of the remaining superdelegates delegates will go her way. That could happen, but it is still not that likely to happen.

Obama Beats McCain; Hillary Loses

New York Post

O SACKS MAC BUT MAC WHACKS HILLARY

By CHARLES HURT Bureau Chief

March 5, 2008 -- WASHINGTON - Barack Obama would handily beat John McCain in a head-to-head match-up, according to a compilation of poll results, while Hillary Rodham Clinton would lose to the likely GOP nominee.

Obama would collect 252 Electoral College votes to McCain's 216 if the general election were held today, according to the analysis based on recent polls.

Obama leads McCain in 20 states, many of them large enough to offset McCain victories in states with smaller populations.

Five states are too close to call, according to current polls, and McCain would have to win all of them to overtake Obama.

To win, a candidate needs 270 Electoral College votes.

Against Clinton, McCain would go on a 39-state romp and hold 282 Electoral College votes to Clinton's 172. Six states are too close to call in that match-up.

Even if she managed to win all of those close states, she could not make up her 110-vote deficit.

At least two of those toss-ups are in crucial components of the Democratic base: Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Both Democrats lead in New York and New Jersey. Connecticut is projected for the Democrats based on the 2004 results.

In terms of the popular vote, McCain holds a 6-point edge over Clinton in a nationwide poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News.

That same poll found McCain with a smaller edge against Obama, while other polls show Obama with a significant lead.

churt@nypost.com

March 4, 2008

'Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.'

Newsweek
y

Forget tonight. She could win 16 straight and still lose.

By Jonathan Alter Newsweek Web Exclusive Updated: 11:23 AM ET Mar 4, 2008

Hillary Clinton may be poised for a big night tonight, with wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. Clinton aides say this will be the beginning of her comeback against Barack Obama. There's only one problem with this analysis: they can't count.

I'm no good at math either, but with the help of Slate’s Delegate Calculator I've scoped out the rest of the primaries, and even if you assume huge Hillary wins from here on out, the numbers don't look good for Clinton. In order to show how deep a hole she's in, I've given her the benefit of the doubt every week for the rest of the primaries.

So here we go: Let's assume Hillary beats expectations and wins Ohio tonight 55-45, Rhode Island 55-45, Texas, 53-47 and (this is highly improbable), ties in Vermont, 50-50.

Then it's on to Wyoming on Saturday, where, let's say, the momentum of today helps her win 53-47. Next Tuesday in Mississippi—where African-Americans play a big role in the Democratic primary—she shocks the political world by winning 52-48.

Then on April 22, the big one, Pennsylvania—and it's a Hillary blowout, 60-40, with Clinton picking up a whopping 32 delegates. She wins both of Guam's two delegates on May 30, and Indiana's proximity to Illinois does Obama no good on May 6, with the Hoosiers going for Hillary 55-45. The same day brings another huge upset in a heavily African-American state: enough North Carolina blacks desert Obama to give the state to Hillary 52-48, netting her five more delegates.

Suppose May 13 in West Virginia is no kinder to Obama, and he loses by double digits, netting Clinton two delegates. The identical 55-45 result on May 20 in Kentucky nets her five more. The same day brings Oregon, a classic Obama state. Oops! He loses there 52-48. Hillary wins by 10 in Montana and South Dakota on June 3, and primary season ends on June 7 in Puerto Rico with another big Viva Clinton! Hillary pulls off a 60-40 landslide, giving her another 11 delegates. She has enjoyed a string of 16 victories in a row over three months.

So at the end of regulation, Hillary's the nominee, right? Actually, this much-too-generous scenario (which doesn't even account for Texas's weird "pri-caucus" system, which favors Obama in delegate selection) still leaves the pledged-delegate score at 1,634 for Obama to 1,576 for Clinton. That's a 58-delegate lead.

Let's say the Democratic National Committee schedules do-overs in Florida and (heavily African-American) Michigan. Hillary wins big yet again. But the chances of her netting 56 delegates out of those two states would require two more huge margins. (Unfortunately the Slate calculator isn't helping me here.)

So no matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February. Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal.

For all of those who have been trashing me for saying this thing is over, please feel free to do your own math. Give Hillary 75 percent in Kentucky and Indiana. Give her a blowout in Oregon. You will still have a hard time getting her through the process with a pledged-delegate lead.

The Clintonites can spin to their heart's content about how Obama can't carry any large states besides Illinois. How he can't close the deal. How they've got the Big Mo now.

Tell it to Slate's Delegate Calculator.

'Change is not easy...'

Obama Nabs Another Georgia Superdelegate

|The Atlanta Journal-Constitution | Published on: 03/04/08

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama has scored another superdelegate from Georgia.

Democratic National Committee member Mary Long told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution she will back the senator from Illinois in his quest for the Democratic nomination for president.

Long was one of five Georgia superdelegates yet to choose between Obama and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.).

"This year, Democrats are graced with the opportunity to choose among excellent candidates for our nation's highest office," Long said. "After careful thought, it is my honor today to endorse Sen. Barack Obama who, day by day and state by state, is challenging politics as usual and engaging so many new, diverse, Democratic voters."

These new voters, Long said, will help elect Democrats on the state and local level. Long said she will be "on the side of history" when she casts her superdelegate's vote for Obama at the party's national convention in August.

Long joins U.S. Reps. David Scott, John Lewis, John Barrow, Sanford Bishop and Hank Johnson in backing Obama. Clinton has the support of state Labor Commissioner Michael Thurmond and DNC members Carole Dabbs and Lonnie Plott. Former President Jimmy Carter, party chairwoman Jane Kidd, U.S. Rep. Jim Marshall and DNC member Ronnie Ray have yet to pick a candidate.

Time to End the Politics of Fear

A Defining Moment

March 4, 2008 New York Times Op-Ed Columnist By DAVID BROOKS

The Democratic presidential primary campaign began around Christmas 2006, and it may end Tuesday night. But of all the days between then and now, the most important was Nov. 10, 2007.

On that day, the Democratic Party of Iowa held its Jefferson-Jackson dinner and invited the candidates to speak. There were thousands of Democrats sitting around tables on the floor of the Veterans Memorial Auditorium in Des Moines, and rowdy thousands more up in the stands.

Hillary Clinton gave a rousing partisan speech. Standing on a stage in the middle of the arena with her arms spread and her voice rising, she welcomed the next president and declared: “We are here tonight to make sure that next president is a Democrat!”

She described how change was going to come about in this country: through fighting. She used the word “fight” or “fought” 15 times in one passage of the speech, fighting for health care, fighting for education and women’s rights. Then she vowed to “turn up the heat” on Republicans. “They deserve all the heat we can give them!” she roared.

Finally, she described the presidency. It’s a demanding job, she suggested, that requires fortitude, experience and mettle. The next president will bear enormous burdens, she continued. The president’s job is to fight for people who feel invisible and can’t help themselves.

Clinton rode the passion of the crowd and delivered an energetic battle cry. And in many elections that sort of speech, delivered around the country, would clinch the nomination.

But this is a country in the midst of a crisis of authority, a country that has become disillusioned not only with one president, but with a whole system of politics. It’s a country that has lost faith not only with one institution, but with the entire set of leadership institutions. The cultural context, in other words, allowed for a much broader critique, a much more audacious vocabulary.

And Barack Obama leapt right in.

He spoke after 11 p.m. The crowd had been sitting for four hours. In the previous months, Obama had been criticized for being bland on the stump. But this night, he unleashed a zealous part of himself that has propelled his candidacy ever since.

His first big subject was belief itself. Instead of waging a partisan campaign as Clinton had just done, he vowed to address “not just Democrats, but Republicans and independents who’ve lost trust in their government but want to believe again.”

Then he made a broader attack on the political class, and without mentioning her, threw Clinton in with the decrepit old order. “The same old Washington textbook campaigns just won’t do,” he said, in a now familiar line. He said it was time to “finally tackle problems that George Bush made far worse but that had festered long before George Bush ever took office — the problems that we’ve talked about year after year after year.”

Obama sketched out a different theory of social change than the one Clinton had implied earlier in the evening. Instead of relying on a president who fights for those who feel invisible, Obama, in the climactic passage of his speech, described how change bubbles from the bottom-up: “And because that somebody stood up, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And standing up, with courage and clear purpose, they somehow managed to change the world!”

For people raised on Jane Jacobs, who emphasized how a spontaneous dynamic order could emerge from thousands of individual decisions, this is a persuasive way of seeing the world. For young people who have grown up on Facebook, YouTube, open-source software and an array of decentralized networks, this is a compelling theory of how change happens.

Clinton had sounded like a traditional executive, as someone who gathers the experts, forges a policy, fights the opposition, bears the burdens of power, negotiates the deal and, in crisis, makes the decision at 3 o’clock in the morning.

But Obama sounded like a cross between a social activist and a flannel-shirted software C.E.O. — as a nonhierarchical, collaborative leader who can inspire autonomous individuals to cooperate for the sake of common concerns.

Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There’s only one politics, and, tragically, it’s the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she’s always been the moon to his sun. That night in November, he defined the campaign.

Vote Obama, Today!

Come on Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Vermont!

March 3, 2008

Time For a Change: Ohio for Obama

Time for a Change: Texas for Obama

Two Hot Dogs, a Drink, and a Nod to Obama


A sign proclaiming support for Senator Barack Obama dominates the front of the Gray’s Papaya store on Broadway at 72nd Street. (Photo and article by: Alexis Mainland/The New York Times)

Nicholas A. B. Gray, the chain’s founder and resident pundit, has offered endorsements of candidates seeking the presidential nomination from Jimmy Carter in 1976 to Bill Bradley in 1999 to, most recently, the noncandidate Michael R. Bloomberg.

It Comes Down to Human Decency: Why The Hillary Clinton Campaign needs to be 'rejected' and 'denounced'


'Did I say Osama? I meant Obama!' says Clintonite

by James Oliphant

A lawyer in a prominently Democratic suburb of Cleveland relates this tale to The Swamp on the day before the all-important Ohio primary:

So last night around dinner time, the phone rings. It’s the Hillary campaign–official number, per the caller ID. The woman on the other end asks me if Hillary can count on my support Tuesday. I say I have not decided.

She asks what would help me decide. I say, “Well . . . maybe she can make Bill her vice president.” She does not know how to take me, of course, but has to assume I am serious. “I don’t think she can do that.” “Bill will have a significant role in major decisions, though, won’t he?” I ask. “Oh, certainly he will be very involved. Do you like Bill?” “Very much.” I reply.

She then launches into a two-minute spiel on all the very specific initiatives and proposals Hillary has put forth on health care, the war in Iraq, etc., etc. At the end of her spiel, she says, “And we haven’t heard anything that specific from Osama bin Laden.”

I say, “You did not just say that.” She replies, “I’m sorry . . . just a slip of the tongue.” She then thanks me for my time and encourages me to vote for Hillary on Tuesday.

The lawyer says he was "stunned" and tells The Swamp the call originated from the Clinton campaign in Columbus. Are the dirty tricks ramping up as we get down to the wire? Swamp readers in Ohio and Texas, relate your own encounters with the Clinton or Obama campaigns if you've had them.