Hillary Wants Obama to Bail Her Out

Let's see if I get this straight: Hillary knew many weeks ago that she would be unable to secure the Democratic nomination, yet she persisted. She continued to solicit donations from Democratic supporters that could've gone into Obama's coffers to help pay for the general election. And, instead of being able to save money for the general election, Obama's campaign had to spend their funds to battle the negative-tinged campaigning (such as the now famous "3 a.m. ad") waged by Clinton's team.

You might think she'd done enough damage, but apparently not. She is now looking to broker a deal with Obama to have him pay her campaign debts. That's right--she wants him to pay for her bad decisions! And in doing so, his campaign will have to tap even more of his funds that should be used campaigning against McCain in fall.

I don't know who annoys me more: Hillary, for acting in a way that damages her party's chances to win in November? Bill, for some of the embarrassing and paranoid things he's been saying as his wife's chances dwindled? (Funny how when the Clintons were stacking the deck to aid Hillary's campaign it was fine and dandy, but once the party leadership demonstrated they could think on their own, Bill cries foul.) People like Bill Maher who acted like there was nothing wrong with Hillary continuing to run long past her ability to win, despite the financial and other adverse consequences to the party? Or maybe it's the voters who claim to care about the war in Iraq, the environment, education, civil rights, and other core issues who decided to continue to fund Hillary's damaging campaign rather than to rally around the future party nominee.

Oh heck, maybe I'll just be annoyed at all of them. But my annoyance will turn to anger if Hillary drains Obama's campaign funds to cover the debts she incurred waging a campaign that should've ceased tens of millions of dollars ago. Rumors are that Clinton's campaign is as much as $40 million in the red. CNN reports Obama's campaign has just over $50 million cash on hand. If the Obama campaign permits Hillary to further damage the Democrat's chances of beating the GOP this fall, I'll be angry at just about all of them--Hillary, Bill, Dean, Obama, all of them.

Here's what I'd suggest: Bill and Hillary can lick their wounds and spend the rest of their lives living with the ramifications of their poor decision to continue and to loan money to a doomed campaign. Considering the kind of money Bill pulls down for speaking engagements, he should be able to pay off Hillary's campaign debt in about eight years.

I understand this opinion is being colored by frustration, but I think Obama should let Hillary find her own way out of her mess. He's going to sew up the nomination soon with or without Clinton's withdrawal, and it's time he starts concentrating on what he needs to do to lead the Democratic Party to victory in November. Paying for Hillary's lack of judgment isn't going to help the Democratic party or his campaign.

An Article That Will Dispirit You (Unless You're a Racist)

If your day is going a little too well, here's a Washington Post article that will leave you saddened. The article is entitled, "Racist Incidents Give Some Obama Campaigners Pause," and it shares stories of Obama volunteers who have endured comments like, "I'll never vote for a black person," "White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people", and "Hang that darky from a tree!"

The idea that this sort of racism still exists is dispiriting, but to hear the regularity with which Obama campaigners have faced this sort of crap is profoundly disturbing. It pisses me off and makes me embarrassed for some portion of my race.

Tonight's results from the progressive state of West Virginia suggest this sort of mentality runs deeper than it should in the 21st Century. According to The Herald Tribune, a full 20% of West Virginia voters said race was an important factor in their vote, and that's just the percentage of people who were willing to admit it! How unabashedly racist does a person have to be to admit--even an anonymous pollster--that one believes the color of a person's skin is an important and relevant factor in determining that individual's capabilities?

All of this wouldn't be quite so disappointing if it didn't seem Hillary is courting exactly this sort of Neanderthal thinking ("Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again"). I guess "the first black president" wasn't married to the "first black First Lady."

Obama will be victorious for the Democratic nomination, and then we'll see how much race is a factor for the general election. Until recently, I was naive enough to think it would have minimal impact, but now I'm not so sure.

By the way, if you happen to be one of those people who think that race matters when it comes to leadership, please click any of the following: Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King, Jr., Charles R. Drew, Nelson Mandela, Ralph Bunche, Thurgood Marshall, Colin L. Powell, or Carol Moseley Braun.

Hillary Vader versus Barack Skywalker

Someone has a lot of time on his or her hands and a great deal of affection for Barack Obama.

What is Hillary Trying to Accomplish?

Could someone please tell me what Hillary is trying to accomplish at this point in the Democratic primaries?

She cannot win. Period. Check out the NY Times Interactive Delegate Tracker. Even if she won every remaining state by a 55/45 percentage (which is the best she's managed in any primary in the last two months), she'd need to get the support of three-quarters of the remaining superdelegates in order to earn the nomination. The problem with this is that she won't win the remaining states by a ten-point margin; Clinton has been polling neck-and-neck with Obama for weeks, so there's no way for her close that margin.

In order to win, she'd need superdelegates to cast their ballot contrary to the popular election, which no one thinks is going to happen. In fact, she continues to lose superdelegates to Obama. Since Tuesday's primaries, Obama has gained six superdelegates while Clinton picked up one and lost another.

Hillary is running out of money. She's loaned her campaign $11.4M this year, and her campaign still has $10.3 M in unpaid bills as of March 31.

Respected pundits on virtually every media outlet have essentially or explicitly announced that the race is over and Obama has won, following her narrow win in Indiana and substantial defeat in North Carolina.

Even Clinton friends and supporters are calling for an end to this painful situation. George Stephanopoulos, George McGovern, Bill Richardson, Robert Reich and other Clinton loyalists have shifted their allegiance or called on Hillary to pull out of the race.

I understand she has the right to continue to run, but given she cannot win the nomination, what is her motivation to do so? It is clear Hillary's continued presence in the race is doing damage to Obama's and her party's chances to win in the general election:

• She is introducing race into the election, which cannot be good for her party or the country at large. This isn't the first time Hillary or Bill has played the race card, and it gets uglier every time they do it. In an interview today, she said, "Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again" and "whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me." (The deluded woman told USA Today she didn't believe her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive because, "These are the people you have to win if you're a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.")
  
  
• She continues to push for the Michigan and Florida primaries to count, even though she agreed they should not, even though she was the only remaining candidate on the ballot in one of those states, and even though no campaigning was done in either state by either candidate. If she dropped out, the rift with Dems in these states could be healed since these states' delegates could be seated at the convention. But instead, Hillary continues to push for a retroactive change in the rules, raising concerns this issue could cause a widening of the rift within the party. (If she really cared about including the Democratic voters in those states, Hillary would acknowledge the obvious, drop out, and invite those delegates to play a role at the convention to anoint Obama.)
  
  
• On top of those issues, Hillary is continuing to attack Obama and weaken him for the general election while McCain enjoys criticism-free months. She continues to raise funds that could go to supporting Obama in the general election, and she's forcing Obama to spend his campaign funds running against her rather than against McCain.

The whole mess is just unbelievable. An unpopular GOP president, a horrible war, a weakening economy--this should be an easy election for the Democrats, and right now the candidate who cannot win is threatening to undermine the Democrat who can.

A friend of mine tonight said he believes Hillary is working for the Republicans. I can't see how this is possible, but between her ads that play on voters' fears of terrorism, her mailers featuring pro-gun stands, and her actions in the race, it's an almost believable contention.

Which brings me back to my original question: Could someone please tell me what Hillary is trying to accomplish at this point in the election? (And really, shouldn't the ability to grasp reality be one of the primary qualities we want in a presidential candidate?)

Obama and Clinton - How they're advertising

Once again (as I've often been during this campaign), I am struck with the contrast in the way Hillary and Barack advertise.

Here is Hillary's ad. It's very negative and gives half the story. She paints Obama as unwilling to make decisions when, in fact, he's making tough decisions and not simply going for easy fixes.



Here's another controversial Hillary ad that has received a great deal of criticism from bloggers and pundits. An often-heard refrain is that this was taken from Karl Rove's campaign playbook, with the use of images from Pearl Harbor, the Depression, Bin Laden, and a few other crises. Like her infamous "3 am" ad, this uses fear to convince voters they need her, without actually offering any reasons why or even suggesting she has policies to prevent future disasters. In fact, she almost seems to be campaigning on platform that says she can't stop problems from happening, but at least she can answer the phone in the White House when they do.



Barack's ad certainly is aimed at Hillary, but it isn't negative, it doesn't use fear, it simply talks plain sense about the nonsensical proposal to suspend gas taxes. He points out how little it will save, and how this action (supported by the two GOP candidates, Clinton and McCain) (well if she doesn't want to be called a GOP candidate, she should stop advertising like one) will do nothing to solve the real problems causing gas prices to rise.

For Which Party's Nomination is Hillary Running?

After getting criticism for borrowing from the Republican play book with her "3 AM" ad, you'd think Clinton might be a little more cautious. But days before the pivotal Pennsylvania primary she's doing it again. CNN reports Hillary Clinton launched a television ad there that includes images from the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Osama Bin Laden.

The GOP's use of fear as a campaign weapon has always disturbed me. Despite the fact I am a fiscal conservative and consider myself a very moderate voter, I am rarely tempted to consider a Republican candidate for president because I can't shake the feeling they strive to manipulate voters with fear. (Fear is rarely a good place from which to govern or lead.)

The way Hillary is campaigning is really turning me off. A month ago I scoffed at Democrats who said they would vote for McCain if "their candidate" (either Hillary or Barack) failed to win the nomination. Now, I'm beginning to understand those feelings.

I won't go so far as to say I'll vote GOP if Hillary someone manages to climb past Obama, but I am beginning to understand sentiments such as those voiced by Michael Moore today on his Web site:

Over the past two months, the actions and words of Hillary Clinton have gone from being merely disappointing to downright disgusting. I guess the debate last week was the final straw. I've watched Senator Clinton and her husband play this game of appealing to the worst side of white people, but last Wednesday, when she hurled the name "Farrakhan" out of nowhere, well that's when the silly season came to an early end for me. She said the "F" word to scare white people, pure and simple. Of course, Obama has no connection to Farrakhan. But, according to Senator Clinton, Obama's pastor does...

This sleazy attempt to smear Obama was brilliantly explained the following night by Stephen Colbert. He pointed out that if Obama is supported by Ted Kennedy, who is Catholic, and the Catholic Church is led by a Pope who was in the Hitler Youth, that can mean only one thing: OBAMA LOVES HITLER!

Finally, I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

Hillary keeps using fear and attacks to try to save her floundering campaign. I continue to believe this isn't good for the Democrat's chances in the general election. Hillary seemed on track to become the first female president of the United States, if not in 2008 then perhaps in 2012, but I feel she's doing herself a great deal of damage among the Democratic faithful with the way she's chosen to manage her campaign.

Some are suggesting an Obama/Clinton ticket, but the way she's running for president, perhaps we may see a McCain/Clinton ticket instead.

Clinton and Obama Tied?

Most folks thought the last Democratic debate was a draw, but the daily Gallup polls seem to show otherwise. According to Gallup, Obama and Clinton are now running neck and neck. The latest poll gives Hillary a one-point lead, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20.

I'm a bit surprised by this. It will be interesting to see how Pennsylvania votes on Tuesday.

Bill Clinton thinks Hillary voters are wise

Bill Clinton says older voters are too wise to be fooled by Barack Obama's rhetoric. Older voters are tending toward Hilary, but I'm not sure that's because of wisdom.

According to Gallup, those with post-graduate degrees support Obama over Clinton by a more-than-2-to-1 margin. Among those with college degrees, Barack's support is more than 50% greater than Hillary's. And among those with some college, Obama's support is around 33% greater than Hillary's. It is only among those with a high school education or less that Hillary is out-polling Barack.

Also of note is that Gallup is reporting that Obama's lead over Hillary is at it greatest point all year among Democrats. As recently as two weeks ago, in the midst of pastorgate, Hillary was running within three points of Barack, but his lead has been growing since. And in Pennsylvania, where Hillary desperately needs a win next Tuesday, she is polling just five points ahead of Obama with a large percentage of undecideds. The LA Times reports she is "losing traction" in that state.

There's a big debate in Philadelphia tomorrow night. With so much riding on this next primary, this could be an important and interesting debate!

Obameter: Latest News From the Democratic Front

Well, the news as of late certainly hasn't been good for Hillary. Some of this you'll know, but some may be news to you:

• Gallup shows that Obama is again increasing his lead. He has a 9-point lead nationally, almost equaling his 10-point lead prior to pastorgate.
  
• The New York Times has featured the latest in a string of articles that demonstrates it is almost impossible for Hillary to win the nomination given the delegate situation. In fact, in the past two months, while she's been wooing superdelegates, Hillary has lost the support of two and Barack has picked up the support of an additional 69 superdelegates.
• The Clinton campaign has lost another leader. Mark Penn, a leading adviser to Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1996, quite after apologizing for holding talks with officials from the Colombian government about a bilateral trade treaty with the United States that Mrs. Clinton opposes.
• Polls in North Carolina show Hillary taking a beating from Barack. She had a lead in the state a few months ago, but she is now polling ten to 20 points below Obama in most polls.
  
• The one bright spot for Hillary this week is that she is still showing strength in Pennsylvania where she desperately needs a win. Her lead there is shrinking, however, and some recent surveys show the race is a dead heat.

"Interesting" times for the Democratic party.

Hillary Clinton's BLEEPing Obama

Following in the footsteps of the hilarious Jimmy Kimmel/Sarah Silverman/Matt Damon/Ben Affleck videos comes this one. Apparently, Hillary wants a piece of Obama--that piece!

Larry Lessig on Hillary and Obama

Lawrence Lessig is a very smart guy. He is a professor of law at Stanford Law School and founder of its Center for Internet and Society. He is also founder and CEO of the Creative Commons and a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and of the Software Freedom Law Center.

He is worth hearing, even for 20 minutes in the following video. Here is Mr. Lessig's thoughts on politics of the last 15 years and his views on how Barrack and Hillary are running their campaigns.

Will Hillary take one for the team?

Not a lot of good news for Hillary Clinton this week:

• New Backing for Obama As Party Seeks Unity from the WSJ: "Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up. Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday... (and) North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group before that state's May 6 primary... What makes such endorsements significant is that they're from superdelegates... Since the "Super Tuesday" primaries on Feb. 5, Sen. Obama has won commitments from 64 superdelegates and Sen. Clinton has gotten nine. Sen. Obama has a total of 217 superdelegates in his camp while Sen. Clinton has 250, and her margin has been shrinking with each week."
  
  
• Cash-strapped Clinton fails to pay bills from Politico: "Hillary Rodham Clinton’s cash-strapped presidential campaign has been putting off paying hundreds of bills for months — freeing up cash for critical media buys but also earning the campaign a reputation as something of a deadbeat in some small-business circles. A pair of Ohio companies owed more than $25,000 by Clinton for staging events for her campaign are warning others in the tight-knit event production community — and anyone else who will listen — to get their cash upfront when doing business with her. Their cautionary tales, combined with published reports about similar difficulties faced by a New Hampshire landlord, an Iowa office cleaner and a New York caterer, highlight a less-obvious impact of Clinton’s inability to keep up with the staggering fundraising pace set by her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.
  
  "If she had paid off the $8.7 million in unpaid bills she reported as debt and had not loaned her campaign $5 million, she would have been nearly $3 million in the red at the end of February. By contrast, if you subtract Obama’s $625,000 in debts and his general-election-only money from his total cash on hand at the end of last month, he’d still be left with $31 million."
  
  
• Gallup Daily: Obama Now at 52% to Clinton’s 42%: "Barack Obama has extended his lead over Hillary Clinton among Democrats nationally to 52% to 42%, the third consecutive Gallup Poll Daily tracking report in which he has held a statistically significant lead, and Obama's largest lead of the year so far. This marks the first time either candidate has held a double-digit lead over the other since Feb. 4-6, at which point Clinton led Obama by 11 percentage points."

Will Hillary do the right thing for the party? Or is she committed to beating up on the person who is virtually guaranteed to earn the party nomination, thus making it tougher for Obama to win in the general election. Will Hillary go down in the history books and in the hearts of Democrats much like Ralph Nader--a Democrat whose ego got in the way and aided a Republican victory?

Obama Girl is Back

it isn't as catchy as "I've got a Crush on Obama." Or as funny. Or as good. But what the heck, Obama Girl is back telling Hillary her campaign is just helping McCain...

It's 3 am and Hillary is getting calls from annoyed voters

Hillary Clinton took a page out of the GOP playbook in the run-up to the Texas primary by launching an ad that played on fear. The ad featured children sleeping with the sound of a ringing telephone--the red phone at the White House. The ad asks, when its 3 am and there's a crisis in the world, "Who do you want answering the phone?"

This being 2008, the Internet community wasn't going to sit back and let Hillary claim to have experience when her primary claim seems to be that she slept in the White House next to the President for 8 years. So, YouTube is now so slammed with parody ads that it's actually difficult to find the real one.

For your viewing pleasure, here are some of the parodies and criticisms Clinton's ad has generated.

Jack Nicholson embarrasses himself and Hillary

A couple weeks ago, a viral video appeared on the Internet. It featured Will.I.Am and a number of his friends turning the words of Barack Obama into a song. The word were inspirational, the video was emotional, and the video touched many people.

Jack Nicholson thought he'd try his hand at this viral video thing that the kids are doing, and so the video below is his idea of an endorsement for Hillary. I find this clip embarrassing to both him and to Hillary.

Where Will.I.Am drew inspiration from Obama's words, Jack pulls random unrelated clips from the scripts of movies in which he's acted. Where Will.I.Am featured Obama, Jack apparently found no worthy reason to feature Hillary herself. And perhaps most tellingly, where Will.I.Am summed up his video with the motivational words "Yes we can," Jack's idea of an endorsement is "There's nothing on this earth sexier, believe me gentlemen, than a woman you have to salute in the morning."

If this is the kind of inspiration that Hillary generates, she's even more doomed than I thought. And Jack Nicholson didn't do himself any favors--instead of the hip, mature, funny person he has come to portray in films, he instead looks like a clueless, 70-year-old man embarrassingly missing the mark with an unfunny and inappropriate video.

Hillary on SNL

SNL demonstrates its glee at getting the writers back while there's still campaign left to lampoon, and Hillary demonstrates her warmth and humor in this debate skit...

Always check out your backdrop

If you run for president someday, always be careful of the things that appear behind you. Is this a photo of Hillary and her running mate, or is that Bill standing behind her? No, that's just the mascot of the school in St. Clairsville, Ohio where she was speaking.

Hillary's Response to "Yes We Can"

Is this Hillary Clinton's campaign's response to the Will.I.Am video for "Yes We Can"? It would appear Hillary's campaign staff hasn't listened to a new CD since, well, CDs were invented. It's back to the future with Hillary...

Brand Obama versus Brand Clinton

Yes, we all claim to hate the "packaging" of presidential candidates as though they're products on the shelf a giant electorate grocery store. We all think we evaluate our preferred candidates based on a thorough consideration of their platforms, and even the hint that a candidate is being groomed or redirected to appeal to consumers--I mean voters--sends Americans howling. We expect our candidates to represent us, but heaven forbid they convene a focus group to see what is on our minds!

But here's the fact of the matter--we elect presidents with no more care and concern than we select toothpaste or peanuts. I'll bet the average American will spend more time watching the Super Bowl, shopping for their next automobile, or seeing movies in 2008 than they will examining the candidates' platforms.

Pollsters know that we vote for candidates we find likable and trustworthy, but it doesn't really take a research specialist to see this. Last election, we reelected a president who had gotten us into a war over unjust causes and erroneous intelligence because we didn't want the smart, dedicated, stiff guy. Bush was the guy many of us wanted to sit down and have a beer with, and no one wanted to listen to Kerry speak for more than 10 minutes out of fear they'd be put to sleep. That isn't much of a way to select the leader of the strongest nation on earth, is it?

So, if for a moment we can set aside our knee-jerk tendency to claim that candidates shouldn't be "branded" and that Americans base their voting decisions on policy and not brand attributes, I'd like to explore Brand Obama and Brand Clinton.

Brand Obama is a singular brand, while Brand Clinton is a brand family. Brand Obama is just Barack, but one cannot evaluate Hillary's brand without considering the positive and negative associations transferred from Bill.

The Clinton Brand family is a complex brand. Bill was leader during a time of positive economic growth, and he had charismatic appeal that worked for the left and middle (but drove the right crazy). He embarrassed himself at the end of his presidency with a sex scandal, but earned new trust by being a respectable elder statesman after departing office. Interestingly, he was elected despite being considered a little untrustworthy--you'll recall his nickname was "Slick Willy"--but Brand Bill was able to overcome the negative associations because voters found him so likable and genuine.

Chances are, the Junior Senator from New York would probably not be a front-runner for the office of President were it not for her last name. Brand Clinton carried her to victory when she ran for Senate in New York--a state in which she had never previously lived--and it gave her the boost she needed to be considered a serious candidate for the White House.

But while one cannot ignore Brand Clinton's impact on Hillary, she will win or lose the election as her own brand. And this is where Brand Hillary has some problems. There are doubts as to her trustworthiness; in an NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey, just 34% gave Hillary good scores for being "honest and straightforward" while 39% rated her poorly.

This is a HUGE problem for her and the Democratic party. Lacking Bill's "man of the people" appeal, his easy charm, and his folksiness, Hillary is going to struggle to overcome the trust issue. And like any brand, she cannot get out of it by offering more product features; in other words, having better policy or being smarter simply isn't enough to overcome trust and likability issues. (If it were, we'd be voting to re-elect President Kerry this year.)

Brand Obama, on the other hand, looks pretty good. He's likable and trustworthy. The same poll that knocked Hillary on the trust issue showed Barack's decided advantage: 51% said Obama's "honest and straightforward," 17% did not.

Obama's got a strong brand, and Hillary is going to find it damn tough to overcome his momentum. You can complain all you want about the way I'm reducing the candidates to fluff over substance, but unless Hillary can find ways to convince voters she's not just smart and capable but also likable and trustworthy, it's all over.

Of course, Brand Clinton should never be ruled out. Party loyalists (a/k/a Superdelegates) continue to lean toward her (or, more accurately, to the Clinton brand), so she may yet capture the nomination. But versus McCain, the likely Republican candidate, she's going to lose out on those same important brand attributes of likability and trust.

I have no idea how, but Hillary's got to get likable and/or trustworthy fast, or she'll need to step aside for a stronger Democratic brand... er, I mean candidate.

Did Obama actually win Super Tuesday?

According to numbers on the Time web site, around 14.5 million votes were cast in Democratic races yesterday, and Hillary and Obama were virtually tied in aggregate ballot counts. Hillary (with 50.2% of the vote) received less than 50,000 more votes than Obama. Considering she was kicking the stuffing out of Obama just a couple weeks ago, this trend could be a significant problem for Hillary in the coming primaries.

Also of interest is that in the 19 states with both Democratic and Republican primaries, the Dems drew 73% more voters than did the GOP candidates. You can't make too much out of this, since it may simply be that the tight Democratic race drew more people who wished to impact the race, but it also may be that the GOP has reason to worry for the general election (as if we didn't know that already).

At first, it seemed Hillary may have extended her delegate lead over Obama, but there are now claims from Obama's camp and NBC news that Obama may have narrowed the difference in delegate counts. As noted earlier today on this blog, the way delegates are assigned and counted ain't very straight forward. Everyone is still adding and calculating, but Politico.com reports, "NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton. "

The site notes, "The running totals for the two, which includes previous contests and the party officials known as “superdelegates,” are only about 70 delegates apart, Russert said. The bottom line is that the two are virtually tied."

Also of interest: Drudge is reporting a rumor that the Clintons are beginning to dip into personal funds to finance Hillary's run. This could be big news as money is spent on ad time for the important primary races coming up.