Rocky Meets Obama and Hillary

Alas, Pennsylvania did not give Barack-y the win as suggested in this video. But it's still darn funny... [Via Milk and Cookies]

See more funny videos at CollegeHumor

How Hillary Can Still Win

See? It's easy for Hillary to still win. (Extra credit is given for clips from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) [Via OtherCrap]

Hillary's Excellent (and Imaginary) Adventure

Hillary Clinton has been peddling a hair-raising tale on the campaign trail that is designed to make her look brave and presidential. Clinton is telling audiences she was sent around the world to places "too dangerous" for Bill to go while president, which sounds pretty ridiculous on face value, doesn't it?

One story she's been telling pertains to her trip to Bosnia in 1996. In a campaign speech last week, Hillary said:

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

Boy, that sounds pretty scary. But there is one teeny little problem with the story: The facts.

The Washington Post went back to news reports of the day and found that Hillary and her daughter enjoyed a lovely visit to Bosnia. Far from darting from the plane with heads ducked, they actually enjoyed a pleasant welcome ceremony on the tarmac that involved a poetry reading by a small child. As you can see from the photo below, this clearly was a very death-defying experience for all involved.

The trip included Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, who had the following to say when asked about this reportedly life-threatening experience:

"I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place?' What kind of president would say 'Hey man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife. Oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you."

I don't think it's just the lying that annoys me, but to lie about something so obviously verifiable doesn't reflect well on Hillary's credentials as a president. After all, we've already had one Clinton in office that lied about something verifiable.

Ferraro doesn't do Hillary any favors

I'm sure you know that Geraldine Ferraro has quit her honorary position on Hillary Clinton's campaign team. The first major female candidate for vice president didn't do the first major female candidate for president any favors, even on her way out the door.

First of all, she said some very unfortunate and silly things about Barack Obama: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

I've never before heard it claimed that someone achieved great success simply for being a black male. Seems to me most people believe that being a black male is still a disadvantage in our country, and there are certainly statistics to back this up. But in the bunker mentality of the Clinton campaign, everyone's got an advantage and poor Hill is treated unfairly.

To add insult to injury, Ferraro at first tried to defend statements. She seemed to get amnesia over what she said and instead acted as if she'd criticized his policies rather than raising his race: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, 'Let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world,' you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up."

To put the icing on Gerry Ferraro's farewell cake, she added the loony claim that, "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white."

She finally had to leave the Hillary campaign, but even then she was unrepentant and acted as if she'd been unfairly crucified. In her letter to Hillary, Ferraro said, "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."

Apparently Obama must've really come out swinging to be accused of viciously ambushing Ferraro, wouldn't you think? Here's what he said about Ferraro's comments: "I think they were wrong-headed. The notion that it is a great advantage to me to be an African American named Barack Obama and pursue the presidency, I think, is not a view that has been commonly shared by the general public." If that's Gerry's idea of an attack, she must have really, really thin skin.

Of course, Ferraro isn't the only one claiming victimization in Clinton's camp. Bill famously derided Obama's situation as a "fairy tale," and Hillary has frequently whined about the perceived light treatment of Obama by the media.

Gerry's and Hillary's sense of victimization is, I believe, creating an image problem for Clinton. At best this sort of "woe is me" mentality doesn't seem very presidential, and at worst it seems like poorly hidden posturing, if for no other reason than that reality doesn't quite support this attitude. Hillary entered the race with a big lead; she began with enormous name recognition; and Clinton friends within the party had stacked the primary deck in order to favor her. But poor martyred Hillary just can't get a fair shake--in the eyes of her supporters.

My guess is that this tactic won't play well for very long. At some point, Clinton will need to show voters that she's a confident, assertive candidate focused on the country, and this Ferraro embarrassment simply shows Clinton's campaign to be whiny and self-absorbed.

When did Obama decide to stop being Obama?

Obama did not have a good night last night, losing to Hillary in two big states in which he'd hoped to win. His campaign failed to give the decisive final blow to Clinton's campaign that Obama supporters sought.

The results of last night's primaries weren't embarrassing--in states where he'd trailed by double digits, Barack managed to give Hillary a run for her money. He still has a strong lead in delegates, but many in the party had hoped the bickering between the candidates could end so that attention could be turned to defeating McCain. Instead, it appears the sniping will continue and Democratic party unity will be threatened while the GOP coasts and laughs at damage Hillary and Barack do to each other in the lead up to the convention.

I am not a pollster, nor a politician, nor a political consultant, but I have a theory on why Hillary generated a small surge in the days leading up to the Texas and Ohio primaries: Obama has stopped being Obama.

In the weeks before and after Super Tuesday, Barack built an almost cult-like following with his optimistic and hopeful message. He seemed to rise above politics, and his confidence conveyed that he would leave it to others (i.e., Hillary) to throw mud and cast dispersions. He seemed like a juggernaut of righteousness, letting criticisms bounce off him like gnats as he led the country to a better tomorrow.

But the last two weeks have been different. He and has campaign have been taken off their message. Where once Obama seemed to be above politics, his team suddenly seem eager to fight in the trenches. Where once he seemed focused on America, he now seems focused on the presidency. And where he used to focus on his message, he now seems obsessed with countering and disparaging Clinton.

Frankly, it's a little depressing to see his campaign complaining about the release of the photo of him in a turban; to hear about his general counsel infiltrating a Clinton media call to complain about her campaign's tactics; to listen to Obama himself question Clinton's qualifications; to see his campaign focusing on Hillary's tax returns; and to witness Obama staffers slinging mud.

Two weeks ago, Obama stood for something more than a quest for the presidency, and today he has made himself a candidate to be compared, contrasted, and considered. Barack's campaign seems to feel the only way to combat a resurgent Hillary is to fight back tooth and nail, but I hope Obama returns to the high road. What matters to Barack supporters is that in him they see a leader who can forge a way to a better tomorrow, not merely that he is better than Hillary.

He needs to remember that there are ways to respond to Hillary's criticisms without referencing her at all: If she says he is unqualified to take the call at 3 am, Barack shouldn't question her own qualifications but should speak confidently to the media and to supporters about his qualifications as a world leader. If Hillary snipes about his health care plan, he shouldn't try to poke holes in her plan but instead should smile and calmly speak about the benefits of his own plan.

All this political fighting just seems unseemly for Obama, and I suspect his campaign's response is exactly what the Clinton campaign hoped would happen, because the more he references and complains about her, the more he is abandoning his own message and providing reasons for voters to choose with their heads instead of their hearts.

Obameter: Eight straight for Barack

As expected, Barack tonight made it eight straight primary victories with commanding defeats of rival Hillary Clinton in Virginia, Maryland, and District of Columbia. Although few of the ballots have been counted in Maryland as I type this, exit polls show it will go the way of Virginia and DC, with Obama defeating his opponent by an almost two-to-one-margin.

What was not expected was the way Obama won. Hillary to date has been winning with the Latinos, women, seniors, and the less educated. But tonight, according to the DrudgeReport, Barack won:

• Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47
  
• All Religions (Including Catholics)
• All Age Groups (Including Seniors)
• All Regions
• All Education Levels
• And Women by 21 points!

Also as expected, for the first time all major news outlets are reporting that Obama now has more delegates than does Clinton. Since counting delegates is as much art as science at this stage of the primary, there previously was some disagreement as to which candidate was leading prior to this evening. Not any more. MSNBC is reporting Barack with 1,017 to Hillary's 942. Over at CNN, they've got it called Barack with 1,195 to Hillary's 1,178 delegates. And ABC has the delegate count at 1,193 to 1,183 in favor of Obama.

Hillary's campaign is bracing for more losses before an important showdown on March 4th. She's expected to lose Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington next week, although her campaign is still hoping one or two of those states are in play.

At this point, Clinton's campaign has significantly less cash than does Obama's, and she'll be investing much of what's left in Ohio and Texas to try to prove she's still viable. Should Hillary win those states, then the convention could get very interesting (and potentially very messy). If she loses, she'll be low on cash, delegates, and momentum; even though neither candidate will likely arrive at the convention with the necessary majority, it's hard to imagine Clinton can make much of a claim if she fails to take any of the 15 races from the primaries on February 9th, 10th, 12th, 19th, and March 4th.

As if Hillary didn't seem to have enough of a hole to climb out of, most of the latest polls that pit her against probable GOP nominee McCain show her losing at this point. Of the nine national surveys taken in the last two weeks, only two have Clinton beating McCain and the average is a one-point edge to McCain (which is, it should be pointed out, well within the margin of error of these studies). Obama-versus-McCain paints a different picture; of those same nine national polls, only one gives an edge to McCain and the overall average is 3.7 points in Obama's favor.

My personal feeling is that she cannot overcome the likability and trustworthiness issues quickly enough. Even today, there were more headlines about the fact she refuses to release her tax returns as has Obama. Clinton seems to continue to operate under the idea that she can turn the tide based on connections and her policies, but these are not the things that win the hearts of voters. The quicker she can become transparent, the better (but I don't see that happening).

Is Hillary trying to cheat in Michigan and Florida?

Yesterday, I posted how the biggest concern that many voters have about Barack Obama is that he's all inspiration and persuasion with little substance to his platform. For Hillary's part, the biggest knock against her is that she is an opportunist who won't let anything stand in her way to victory. Her actions and statements with respect to the Michigan and Florida delegates are bound to reinforce the stereotype that Hillary is a little untrustworthy.

I recently posted some rather mundane details about caucuses and primaries, but there is one very interesting issue about the Democratic primaries this year. Florida and Michigan opted to move their primaries forward, but the Democratic National Committee (DNC) opposed these changes and has refused to seat delegates from those states at the national convention. In other words, the voters voted in the Michigan and Florida primaries for no reason.

That would seem to be the end of the story. Or is it? Not if Hillary has her say.

Michigan
Michigan Democrats moved their primary date to January 15 in an effort to increase the state's influence in the presidential candidate nominating process. The DNC has rules that prohibit any state except for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina from holding its primary before February 5, so they decided to strip Michigan of all of its delegates to the national convention.

As a result of the DNC decision, Barack, Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and John Edwards withdrew from the Michigan Democratic Primary ballot. Only Hillary and Christopher Dodd decided to remain on the ballot, although Hillary agreed not to campaign in the state. At the time, she drew criticism from the other candidates for not playing by DNC rules and withdrawing her name as did most of her competitors.

Not surprisingly, after her opponents followed the rules, thus allowing Hillary to win the primary virtually uncontested, she's decided that Michigan's votes should count. Hillary is now actively campaigning to have the Michigan delegates seated at the convention--a contention she didn't make until her crushing South Carolina primary defeat. Rolling Stone perhaps weighed in best about this, noting, "the Clinton campaign acts as though they’re entitled to re-write the ground rules of the campaign, ex-post-facto, to their advantage."

Florida
As in Michigan, the Florida legislature voted to move their primary forward. Because the January 29th date violated the DNC rule, the DNC announced it would not seat delegates from Florida. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, three of the four remaining Democratic candidates at the time, pledged not to campaign in the state, although their names remained on the ballot.

Even though Hillary agreed to these rules, her campaign has tried to smear Obama for wanting to following those same rules. Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communications chief, mischaracterized Obama's desire to follow the DNC rules as a "campaign to ignore Floridians." This statement, made in advance of the Florida primary, was a blatantly incorrect and sleazy contention designed to sway voters in Florida.

Hillary's actions following the meaningless Florida primary further reinforce a perception she's willing to play both sides to suit her own goals: She flew to Florida following the primary to hold a victory rally in a state she had agreed would not count. Said CNN senior political analyst Bill Bennett: "This was an ambush in Florida! This was not a competition. This was not supposed to be a competition… There’s no field and no competition and no teams. And she’s crying victory."

Outcome
The outcome of all this controversy has been that Hillary is losing support among the party faithful. Outside the Beltway has a great review of left-wing blog posts about the Michigan/Florida debacle, including comments such as :

• “There was a time and a place to stand up for the Michigan and Florida primaries, but she didn’t do it.”
• "If this pushes her over the edge, the Obama camp, and their supporters, really will feel that she stole her victory... It’s as hard as hardball gets, and the end could be unimaginably acrimonious. Imagine if African-American voters feel the rules were changed to prevent Obama’s victory, if young voters feel the delegate counts were shifted to block their candidate."
• Other liberal bloggers call Hillary's actions “dirty politics,” a “nasty little power grab,” and “bullshit.”

As Hillary is trying to campaign for those primary results to be validated by the DNC, she also continues to fight over superdelegates in a way some find dishonest. In an interview this past week, she accused the Obama campaign of "push(ing) this position" that says Superdelegates should vote in the way their states vote. Hillary called this, "contrary to what the definition of a superdelegate has historically been."

But Obama never said that. He is quoted saying, "My strong belief is that if we end up with the most states and the most pledged delegates, and the most voters in the country, then it would be problematic for political insiders to overturn the judgment of the voters."

Obama's asking a legitimate question--should Superdelegates vote counter to the popular vote and overturn the people's nominee? Meanwhile, Hillary is using language that subtly accuses him of asking for a rules change, which is exceedingly ironic considering he's not, but she is! She wants the rules changed to allow the Florida and Michigan primaries to count after she agreed they shouldn't.

So, where does this leave the Democrats?

• Hillary and Obama will fight tooth and nail for the uncommitted Superdelegates. This group was once felt to largely favor Clinton, since it consists of DNC insiders loyal to Bill Clinton. (The NY Times surveyed Superdelegates prior to Super Tuesday and found them supporting Hillary by a 2-to-1 margin.) Since they are allowed to change their minds, there is no telling the role superdelegates will play at the convention. I will make a prediction, however, and say that I think Obama is on to something--it would be hard, and politically dangerous, for party insiders to overrule the popular vote and nominate a candidate who came to the convention with a decided disadvantage in regular delegates.
  
  
• The questions about Hillary's willingness to play by the rules may be adversely impacting her campaign. While Obama continues to raise large sums of cash, the Clintons had to lend their own campaign money. And in yesterday's voting, Obama crushed Hillary--he won two states (Nebraska and Washington) by a greater than two-to-one margin and easily captured the Louisiana primary by a double-digit margin.
  
  
• There is growing anticipation and concern for the convention. There hasn't been a convention with a nominee in question for over thirty years, but it seems apparent that neither Clinton nor Obama will arrive in Denver for the August convention with enough delegates for a clean win. Some wonder if the two candidates may damage the Democratic party by coming to the national convention with their knives sharpened. And, fair or not, some are wondering if the Clintons will do the most damage, considering Hillary is already trailing in some delegate counts and seems to be losing steam to a resurgent Barack. Is she willing to step aside and allow Obama to win the nomination if he has more delegates at the convention? One interesting twist is a report that a candidate not even running--Al Gore--could be nominated as a "compromise candidate" if Barack and Hillary cannot come to an agreement at the convention.
  
  
• The fight for Michigan and Florida will continue. Some feel the delegates should not count, considering the candidates agreed to the rules beforehand. Others argue the delegates should count since the voters in Michigan and Florida should be heard. And the DNC is now considering a new option--an option that would have to be approved by the states, both of which hate the idea--to hold a second primary or caucus so that the candidates can compete on equal footing.
  

Buckle up--it's going to be a bumpy ride!

Obameter: Barack's slight lead in delegates

Thanks to Mike, who suggested an "Obamater" for my blog. (He also suggested the blog's name and URL.)

So, our new Obameter feature will help us track Barack's progress toward winning Democratic delegates in his race for the presidential nomination. Thanks to MSNBC, we can track this live via this handy-dandy widget.

As of today, MSNBC gives Obama an 861 to 855 lead in delegates with 2,025 needed to win. Since neither candidate seems likely to get the necessary majority prior to the convention, it may be an interesting (or possibly destructive) Democratic convention.

Delegates, Superdelegates, and Superduperdelegates

So, are you as confused as I am about Delegates and Superdelegates in the Democratic primaries? With a little help from CNN, here is a quick primer:

There are 4,049 delegates who select the Democratic nominee for president. However, this number can change if delegates quit, miss the convention, or leave the party. If the total number doesn't change, 2,025 delegates are required for a candidate to win the party nomination.

Of that number, 3,253 are considered "pledged delegates" and the other 796 are Superdelegates.

Pledged delegates are selected at the state or local level based on the caucuses or primaries. The Democrats assign delegates based on the percentage of the primary or caucus votes that each candidate receives--a candidate who wins 50% of the primary or caucus should be assigned 50% of the state's delegates. (The one caveat to that rule is that a candidate must receive 15% of the votes in a caucus or primary to get any delegates.)

Pledged delegates themselves are chosen based on their intention to vote for a particular candidate, but they can change their vote if they want to. In fact, candidates are permitted to review lists of their pledged delegates and bounce any they are concerned may switch their vote. (What a weird system, huh?)

Superdelegates are Democratic members of congress, governors, and party leaders. They are not required to indicate a preference for any candidate, nor can they be bounced off any lists. They get to come to the convention and cast their vote as they wish.

So, where are the Democratic candidates following yesterday's Super Tuesday primary? Split. Hillary won important states (California and New York) and has an edge with an estimated 783 delegates (590 pledged and 193 superdelegates). Obama won more states yesterday, including one considered a national bellwether, Missouri. He trails with 709 delegates (603 pledges and 106 superdelegates.)

Hillary has an edge, but the pundits still consider it a wide open race, which means the two candidates will be duking it out for the remaining states. Obama seems to have momentum and he's got more money to spend. Hillary, to counter Obama's money advantage, is asking for weekly debates (which helps her get unpaid exposure) (but also means she's got to out-debate Obama or the tactic will backfire.)

Who needs sports when election season is this interesting?

Why Democrats should hate that Republicans love Hillary

Here's an interesting article from RealClearPolitics: Republicans for Hillary. Your reaction to it might depend upon how strongly you agree or disagree with the following two statements:

When choosing a candidate in a primary, one should consider whether they can beat the other party's nominee in the general election.

-- or --

The only thing that matters when choosing a candidate in a primary is their stand on the issues--electability be damned.

I think I used to fall in the latter camp, until Nader's boneheaded move that cost the Democrats the 2000 election. (To those who voted their conscience and heart with Nader, I'd ask how you feel about the Iraq war. Do you think we'd be in Iraq had Gore won?) I personally find it difficult not to cast some blame upon the Nader voters for wasting a vote and helping Bush to get elected.

So I now find myself in the pragmatic camp, which is not something I'm particularly proud of. Nonetheless, since I want a Democratic president, I am going to consider who can win come November.

With that in mind, enjoy Republicans for Hillary. The article contends the Republicans "have wanted her to win because they think she's the weakest potential Democratic nominee." "She has the kind of negative ratings candidates usually have only after the battering of a general-election campaign, not before." The article quotes a Republican strategist who states, "It'll be hard as hell to run against Obama."

I know conservatives who'd consider Obama, and I know liberals who say they may not be able to pull the lever next to the name "Clinton." (Lever?!? Man, am I old school.) I feel I ought to consider that as I make my own selection.

My state's primary isn't today, but when it comes later this month, my mind is set.

Clinton goes mad for Obama...

...in this "Umbrella" spoof from MadTV. My friend Thom suggested this one. He's a little obsessed and has started quoting from it, including lines such as "What I want is a little bit of Mandingo Love" and "We may have differed on Iraq but no one's stiffer in the sack."

This one is definitely PG-13. (The fact the FCC wants to fine stations over a few seconds of naked buttocks but misses the not-so-subtle innuendo in skits like this goes to show the inanity in government censorship, doesn't it?)

Jon Stewart on Bill Clinton

The section at the two-minute mark about Bill Clinton is the best Jon's done since the writers went out on strike. But, the phone call reenactment at 4:30 is among the most embarrassing and uncomfortable minutes so far--the laughs start polite and get quieter and quieter as Jon soldiers on through some terrible material.

From Elder Statesman to Partisan Pit Bull

Bill Clinton is earning some frank criticism these days. He was popular for most of his presidency, left office in shame, began re-earning more respect as a statesman (with efforts that included his collaboration with George H. Bush to help victims of Katrina), and is now losing the support of party leaders with his angry and bitter attacks on Barack Obama. In a year in which the Dems should easily win back the White House, the former president is threatening to turn the primary race into a bitter one that will leave whichever candidate survives in worse shape for the general election.

South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the highest ranking African American in Congress, told Bill Clinton to "chill a little bit." Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, an Obama supporter, took Bill to task for taking "glib cheap shots" that are "beneath the dignity of a former president." Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin, criticized Bill's "fairy tale" comments by insisting, "this is reality, not fantasy or fairy tales." Ed Schultz, the nation's top liberal radio talk host, accused Bill of "lying about Barack Obama's record" and "embarrassing" the Democratic Party. Former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle criticized Bill's campaign performance as "Not presidential" and said Bill's actions could "destroy the party" if not stopped. And even former Clinton Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, got into the act, accusing bill of spearheading a "smear campaign against Obama."

In the most scathing criticism from the left, William Greider, national affairs correspondent for liberal political weekly The Nation, said, "The Clintons play dirty when they feel threatened... The recent roughing-up of Barack Obama was in the trademark style of the Clinton years in the White House. High-minded and self-important on the surface, smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard to the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four more years. The thought makes me queasy."

The cause of all this criticism is that Bill is repeatedly accusing Obama of injecting race into the campaign, but it's apparent to anyone following the news that Bill's the guy who's doing it. Once lauded as the "first black president," Bill is destroying the trust and goodwill be built across the races.

For example, one of Bill's recent comments resulted in a shocked ABC News' Senior National Correspondent, sarcastically commenting, "Boy, I can't understand why anyone would think the Clintons are running a race-baiting campaign to paint Obama as 'the black candidate.'" The statement that caused this reaction was Bill's response to question asked about it taking "two Clintons to beat" Obama. Bill's response evoked a past black candidate in a way that seemed to have no relevance to the question but did seem aimed at painting Obama as a "black candidate." Said Bill: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Over at CBSNews.com, senior political editor Vaughn Ververs is bemoaning Bill's "Lost legacy." Says Ververs, "By injecting himself into the Democratic primary campaign with a series of inflammatory and negative statements, Bill Clinton may have helped his wife's presidential hopes in the long term but at the cost of his reputation with a group of voters that have long been one of his strongest bases of political support."

What's interesting is that Bill's aggressive campaigning may have hurt his wife in South Carolina. Nearly six in 10 voters said the former president's efforts for his wife was important to their choice, but ironically among the people who said this, slightly more favored Obama than the former first lady.

And, it's possible Bill's actions are so alienating the Democratic leadership that he's weakening support for Hillary. There are reports today that Ted Kennedy will follow his niece, Caroline, and announce his support for Obama soon.

For the past seven years since Bill left office, I've defended him as a good and sound president and accused others of letting Bill's poor personal decisions cloud their judgment of him as a leader. I now feel as if I was the one who was wrong all along. Bill's nasty and inflammatory actions and words are leading me to believe that--at least in Bill's case--one cannot separate the personal from the professional, the human from the leader. For the Clinton's, it seems everything is political, and to them all's fair in politics and war.

Bill squanders what little goodwill he has left on Hillary campaign

I liked Bill Clinton and I still like Bill Clinton. There, I said it.

I was what was known as a "Clinton Democrat"--a middle-of-the-road Dem who tends to reject some of the more liberal leanings of the party. I was pissed off he lied to the country (but could care less about Monicagate), but I felt he was a pretty solid president.

Which makes me sad to see him squandering his remaining goodwill with these kind of negative comments. According to ABC, Bill mischaracterized and minimized Obama's platform and experience, then lashed out at Obama and said, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

No Bill. The biggest fairy tale most of us have seen was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." (I'm just sayin'--when you live in glass houses, be careful with the rocks!)

The Clinton campaign is slipping, and with NH polls showing another big loss, Bill ranting, and Hillary tearing up, I hope the Clintons can keep the campaign professional, positive, and on track. My fear is that Hill's sense of entitlement may cause her to do something that eventually ends up derailing the Dem's when they least need enemy within their midst.

Hillary Clinton: The Politics of Parsing

I have not chosen which Democrat I'll support. Hillary has been a strong contender, but I am concerned about her inability to be clear on her stands.

Some feel she is too opportunistic, saying one thing one day and another the next. (Or, more accurately, she's accused of saying one thing to one audience and a different thing to a different audience.) It's an accusation that is not without its merit.

Her performance at the last debate was quite horrible, and some of her campaign staff blame moderator Tim Russert (which is a pretty ridiculous accusation, in my opinion).

This video comes from the John Edwards campaign, and it focuses on Hillary's contradictory statements at the last debate. I don't think of it as negative campaigning because it seeks to point out an issue with Hillary, the frontrunner.

If nothing else, I find this an interesting use of the Internet for campaigning purposes--the video was posted one day ago and has been viewed almost 150,000 times already. Election 2008 may be decided on YouTube!