Super-Everything must GO! Tuesday!

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-02-07 03:27pm

Clinton Campaign Staffers Not Going Without Pay

So it turns out the Clinton campaign may not be so cash-strapped after all — at least not at this very moment.

After offering on Wednesday to go without paychecks to help save precious campaign resources, senior staff members on Hillary Clinton's campaign are in fact not going without pay during the month of February, ABC News has learned.

"It's not happening," said a source familiar with the situation.

Clinton's campaign has been shouting from the rooftops all day about its online fundraising efforts since Super Tuesday.

Clinton's Money

The campaign announced today that it raised more than four million dollars online in the 24 hours after polls closed on Tuesday — the biggest single haul in one day ever for the campaign.

"We are gratified for this tremendous outpouring of support," said Clinton Campaign Internet Director Peter Daou.

That outpouring is the reason that a handful of senior staff who had offered to go without pay on Wednesday have been told today that they will not need to skip paychecks.

One longtime Democratic consultant not affiliated with any campaign wondered if perhaps the whole thing wasn't a big stunt to garner media attention and look like an "underdog."

"I'd take this revelation as a sign that they planned this whole thing," the consultant said.

The source familiar with the situation also believes Senator Clinton will not need to loan herself any more cash. On Wednesday it was revealed that Hillary Clinton had given her campaign an infusion of $5 million back in January.
Story
Romney Abandons Bid for GOP Presidential Nomination

The Clinton campaign has enough money on hand now to launch television advertising in multiple states.

Ads are going up this week in Virginia, Maryland and Washington, D.C., which all vote next Tuesday. The campaign is also advertising in Washington state, Maine, and — to a lesser degree — in Nebraska. Those three states vote this weekend.

Next week the campaign will begin advertising for upcoming battles in Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio.

The Clinton campaign is putting a lot of emphasis on the primaries in Texas and Ohio, hoping that victories in those states—with their high delegate counts—will help put Clinton over the top.

It may be a risky strategy, says the Democratic strategist not affiliated with Clinton.

"Other than Maine they will have a tough couple of weeks. So they're saying the only thing that counts is Texas and Ohio. That's helpful but it also sets them up to have to win there."

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 03:59pm

I was just thinking - wouldn't Bill Richardson make a good VP for Obama. Seeing how Obama has been doing poorly with women (but wouldn't against McCain) and Hispanics (which he might well do, seeing how he's black, and the hispanic community has been moving to the right in recent years), as well as providing some real experience of executive power?

Plus he doesn't really look or sound Hispanic, which would negate to a certain extent the problem of running with two minority candidates.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2008-02-07 04:06pm

Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

Fire Fly · Post by **Fire Fly** » 2008-02-07 04:13pm

Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

Bill Clinton would try to twists as many arms as possible to make them throw their super delegate vote for Hillary. I can certainly imagine a scenario where the political establishment forces Obama to step down, even if he came out ahead with delegates and popular votes; he needs convincing victories in the upcoming primaries and caucuses if he is to avoid that scenario. I'm not sure how much Hillary would like to play second fiddle. If it comes out that Obama has a slight lead in delegates, she'll pursue the nuclear option of putting Michigan and Florida delegates into the convention. If such a move happens, the Obama camp retaliates with lawsuit galore and the Democrats will completely splinter.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2008-02-07 04:28pm

Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

Honestly, I doubt Clinton would go for it. Her vanity wouldn't let her.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2008-02-07 04:31pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?
Honestly, I doubt Clinton would go for it. Her vanity wouldn't let her.

Never mind the vanity, any VP for Clinton jolly well better be a subservient dog and willing to get put in a closet. Bill Clinton will definitely play a fair bit of a role.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 04:33pm

Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

The contest is so close, and the Clintons will doubtless play so many dirty tricks if they carry on, that I doubt Obama would take her. You get all the downsides of having Clinton run, without much of a gain.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-02-07 04:37pm

I'm cynical about the American people being ready to accept two minorities on one ticket. A woman, maybe. A Black guy, maybe. A woman AND a Black guy? Uh-huh. May as well swear in Huckabee now.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 04:41pm

Coyote wrote:I'm cynical about the American people being ready to accept two minorities on one ticket. A woman, maybe. A Black guy, maybe. A woman AND a Black guy? Uh-huh. May as well swear in Huckabee now.

How the fuck are women a minority. I know what you mean, but it sounds retarded.

Honorable Mention · Post by **Honorable Mention** » 2008-02-07 04:43pm

Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

Granted this is anecdotal, but most people I know who support Obama loathe Hillary. Some would rather vote McCain.

Post by **Coyote** » 2008-02-07 04:47pm

Androsphinx wrote:How the fuck are women a minority. I know what you mean, but it sounds retarded.

Where else but in the US political system can 52% of the population be a "minority"?

I don't get it either, but that's how it works in the country where the entire political spectrum of all politics is an octave to the right of everywhere else...

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 05:05pm

Apparently there's talking of holding Florida and Michigan again in March, in the hope that it'll help prevent a dirty and/or brokered convention. We'll see...

Molyneux · Post by **Molyneux** » 2008-02-07 05:20pm

Honorable Mention wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?
Granted this is anecdotal, but most people I know who support Obama loathe Hillary. Some would rather vote McCain.

Anecdotal as it may be, I am debating that very point. I'm honestly not certain which of the two I distrust more.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-02-07 05:26pm

Honorable Mention wrote:
Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?
Granted this is anecdotal, but most people I know who support Obama loathe Hillary. Some would rather vote McCain.

Its highly anecdotal because CNN did a survey of primary voters and something like 78% of Obama voters and 82% of Clinton voters said they would vote for the other if they are the general election candidate.

Anyway the reason Clinton would be a bad lower half of the ticket is:

a) She would be spending the next 4 years basically building a resume designed to oust Obama from the top spot by contesting the primary in 2012

b) She wouldn't actually be there to support the administration as, again, she is a self serving politcal hack who will not utilize her position to further the Obama administration but rather set herself up for a still planned future Mrs Clinton administration

c) You get all the Republican acrimony towards the Clinton's after placing a candidate at the top of the ticket who draws almost no negatives from the far right.

d) As a follow up with c I do think Clinton could win in the general election on the top of the ticket BUT she would motivate the far right and even the middle right to come out strongly against her. The democratic power base of young intellectuals, minorities, and blue collar workers would still come out for her (because they sure as hell aren't going for McCain) but the independents wouldn't be completely sold and the far right will vote for whoever is running against Clinton even if its McCain who they don't paticularly like. Simply put Hilary can win, but its going to be 52-48. Obama by contrast draws in more independent voters than McCain, has all the democratic power base behind him (and Latinos who aren't voting for him right now though they did in Illinois sure as hell aren't voting for McCain). He also will not get the far right motivated to vote against him as he hasn't drawn their ire so they just won't vote period. This means Obama can win a decisive victory, a 60-40 victory.

e) What I've mentioned above also affects the REST of the ticket. Remember the Dems need to add quite a few more seats in the Senate and would like to pd their lead in the House. Clinton on any part of the ticket will draw the far right out to vote against democrats in contested districts. She would cost the dems seats in both houses which they desperately need. Obama has all the hallmarks of assembling a colaition like that which can into power with FDR, taking a huge populist movement to secure near super majorities in both houses so that he can move legislation at will. Heck if the margin is right then the party can do things like allow Dems in close districts to avoid voting on hot button issues like abortion yet still pass legislation. Simply put Obama could come into power and bring with him enough firepower to be able to create a sustainable long term majority by allowing the party to craft votes which protect all of its seats yet still passes critical legislation. Against this you have the far right touting their own importance as a maker and breaker of Republican candidates while the centrists start realizing that the fundies don't give a shit about their priorities and the currents Dems are not too bad so why not work with them instead.

In the end Clinton hurts and Obama ticket while bringing no strength in states he won't already be a near shoe in to win (like New York). Conversely picking up someone like Richardson means a good chance of getting Florida and no Republican has won the presidency without Florida since 1924 and McCain doesn't have the organization or money to break that record. He could also go with someone like a Kaine who can tout more bipartisan appeal and help with victories throughout the purple state. If Obama really wanted a female running mate he would be much better served to go with McCaskill or Sebelius who come from battleground purplish states but carry none of the Clinton odor.

Simply put Clinton would be well served with Obama at the bottom of the ticket but Obama would be ill served with Clinton on the bottom of his.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 05:31pm

Conversely picking up someone like Richardson means a good chance of getting Florida and no Republican has won the presidency without Florida since 1924

And no Democrat has won without New Mexico since LBJ.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-02-07 05:42pm

Androsphinx wrote:
Conversely picking up someone like Richardson means a good chance of getting Florida and no Republican has won the presidency without Florida since 1924
And no Democrat has won without New Mexico since LBJ.

Admittedly that includes only Carter and Clinton wheras Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, Nixon, Eisenhower, and Hoover all took Florida and the last Republican to win without it was Coolidge.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-02-07 05:53pm

Gandalf wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but given that both Clinton and Obama seem to be popular amongst the populace, what would stop an Obama/Clinton ticket if Clinton loses the nomination?

Hillary brings nothing to Obama as his VP; the women currently voting for Hillary are already independents and Democrats, and will vote for a black man if Obama is the Democratic candidate. Hispanics already tend to vote Democratic, and aren't likely to vote for John McCain (R) over Barack Obama (D), especially given the Republican party's blatant antipathy toward immigrants, legal or otherwise.

If Obama is the nominee, he's going to need somebody who can provide some credibility on the foreign relations and national defense fronts, and bring a more centrist political agenda to the table. The ideal candidate would be a white guy, so as to not completely scare the shit out of white people over the age of 50. Somebody like Wesley Clark would probably be ideal - although Clark is a Clintonite so it would be tough to convince him - he's white, male, relatively conservative (for a Democrat), and brings a tremendous level of credibility on the national defense front.

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 05:55pm

I'm sorry, I was talking nonsense. No Democrat has won a majority in NM since 1964. Carter lost there, even though he carried the rest of the south, and Clinton 42 was the only Democrat to win there since LBJ.

Erik von Nein · Post by **Erik von Nein** » 2008-02-07 05:56pm

Seems like the whole family's in on it now.

Chelsea campaigns for Hillary wrote:Clinton Taps Unexpected Weapon: Chelsea
By AMY CHOZICK
February 6, 2008; Page A6

ST. LOUIS -- In the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, young voters have rallied behind Barack Obama. Now, as he also makes incursions into Hillary Clinton's core constituency -- women -- with support from Oprah Winfrey, Caroline Kennedy and others, Mrs. Clinton has pulled a seldom-used weapon.

Less than a year ago, campaign officials said that if there was one certainty in this race it was that Chelsea Clinton wouldn't be coming to the microphone.

But the campaign has seen Mrs. Clinton's lead in national polls erode and Mr. Obama score decisive victories in Iowa and South Carolina. Campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle and other top campaign officials have called on Ms. Clinton, 27 years old, to relinquish some of her privacy to help her mother soften her image and reach out to younger voters, who favor Mr. Obama by as much as three to one, according to exit polls.

Campaign aides also hope Ms. Clinton can help undo some of the damage to her mother's campaign done by remarks from former President Clinton that helped drive African-American voters to Mr. Obama in South Carolina.

Over the past few weeks, the once and possibly future first daughter has gone from a silent presence waving and grinning behind her mother to an active campaigner. She delivers speeches, holds lengthy question-and-answer sessions and hosts her own events on college campuses throughout the country.

She speaks knowledgeably about her mother's policies, particularly those relating to younger voters such as financial assistance for college and doing away with predatory credit-card practices. Like her senator mother, Ms. Clinton leans heavily on statistics, reciting the number of uninsured Americans and the rising unemployment rate to make her points.

During Ms. Clinton's swing last week to several colleges in Missouri, students packed into Kayak's Coffee near Washington University in St. Louis and other campus venues to hear her lay out her mother's position on everything from preserving Social Security to the refugee crisis in Darfur, Sudan.

Ms. Clinton said that, as president, her mother will "get the government back into the student-loan business" and do away with the federal financial-aid forms that families must fill out, drawing nods of approval from the audience.

Without a 2% government loan to go to Yale Law School, Hillary Clinton may have had to take a job at a high-paying law firm to pay back her debt rather than going into public service, Ms. Clinton said. "I might not be here today," she said.

Despite her more-public face, Ms. Clinton is still deeply wary of the media. She is noticeably uncomfortable in crowds in which reporters may overhear her and shuns most questions. She declined several requests for an interview for this article.

On a campaign stop in Iowa in December, a 9-year-old student reporter for Scholastic News asked Ms. Clinton if she thought her father would make a good "first man."

"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press, and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," she told the little girl.

The decision to thrust Ms. Clinton into the spotlight now says as much about a daughter's devotion to her mother as it does about Mrs. Clinton's determination to become the first female president.

Mrs. Clinton has spent decades shielding her only child from the public eye.

During Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential run, the 12-year-old was so invisible from the requisite campaign stops and photo-ops that polls showed that many voters didn't know the Clintons had a daughter, leading to a cover story about the three in People magazine.

Shortly after, when Mrs. Clinton moved into the White House as first lady, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis gave her some advice: Protect Chelsea at all costs. Over the next eight years, Mrs. Clinton fought to keep her daughter away from the scandals and ensuing media circus that descended on the Clinton administration.

After graduating from Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., Ms. Clinton went on to lead a private life in Manhattan with a tight-knit group of friends, a position on the board of the School of American Ballet and a job as an investment analyst at Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund run by Marc Lasry, a big Democratic donor.

She didn't return to the limelight when her mother, now a senator representing New York, initially decided to run for president.

By contrast, Republican Mitt Romney's sons have appeared in ads and have been campaigning for nearly a year on their father's behalf. Arizona Sen. John McCain's daughter, Meghan, has been a high-profile presence, traveling with her father and blogging about his events on her Web site.

It is unclear whether the recent injection of Ms. Clinton into the campaign fray translated into more young voters turning out for her mother in the 22 states that went to the polls yesterday.

But for now, her presence may have helped counter some of the attention that Mr. Obama has received from his appearances with talk-show maven Ms. Winfrey.

At a rally Mrs. Clinton held in Albuquerque, N.M., on Saturday night, Chelsea received a bigger roar of applause than her mother. Supporters lined up for Ms. Clinton's autograph and waved signs that read "Chelsea's mom has got it going on."

"She's gorgeous!" shouted Robin Sandberg when she saw Ms. Clinton on a campaign stop at the Planet Hollywood casino in Las Vegas. "I feel like she's part of our family. We watched her grow up," said Ms. Sandberg, 45 years old.

Write to Amy Chozick at amy.chozick@wsj.com

Androsphinx · Post by **Androsphinx** » 2008-02-07 05:58pm

And Hispanics do still vote about 60-40 Democrat, but in '92 and '96 it was more like 75-25. Being traditionally Catholic and thus "conservative" on "moral issues" has helped. Plus McCain isn't the average Republican on immigration, and the hispanic community really doesn't get on with the black one - you have only to look at the way they backed Clinton (44?).

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2008-02-07 06:02pm

SancheztheWhaler wrote:If Obama is the nominee, he's going to need somebody who can provide some credibility on the foreign relations and national defense fronts, and bring a more centrist political agenda to the table. The ideal candidate would be a white guy, so as to not completely scare the shit out of white people over the age of 50. Somebody like Wesley Clark would probably be ideal - although Clark is a Clintonite so it would be tough to convince him - he's white, male, relatively conservative (for a Democrat), and brings a tremendous level of credibility on the national defense front.

I've heard Daschale mentioned as a possible VP nod since he has been quietly campaigning for Obama amongst party figures. The next best bet after that would be Biden or Dodd though either of them as a potential SecState would be a better play.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2008-02-07 06:20pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:If Obama is the nominee, he's going to need somebody who can provide some credibility on the foreign relations and national defense fronts, and bring a more centrist political agenda to the table. The ideal candidate would be a white guy, so as to not completely scare the shit out of white people over the age of 50. Somebody like Wesley Clark would probably be ideal - although Clark is a Clintonite so it would be tough to convince him - he's white, male, relatively conservative (for a Democrat), and brings a tremendous level of credibility on the national defense front.
I've heard Daschale mentioned as a possible VP nod since he has been quietly campaigning for Obama amongst party figures. The next best bet after that would be Biden or Dodd though either of them as a potential SecState would be a better play.

Daschle isn't going to help with charges of being too far to the left, and he doesn't bring much in the way of experience in defense and foreign relations issues, which are Obama's weak points.

DrMckay · Post by **DrMckay** » 2008-02-07 09:35pm

Although an ideal VP for Obama IMO, has Wesley Clark expressed any interest in the position.

I'm gonna throw in my 2 cents and suggest Bill Bradley-if he's still in "the game."

Metatwaddle · Post by **Metatwaddle** » 2008-02-08 12:23am

CmdrWilkens wrote:
SancheztheWhaler wrote:If Obama is the nominee, he's going to need somebody who can provide some credibility on the foreign relations and national defense fronts, and bring a more centrist political agenda to the table. The ideal candidate would be a white guy, so as to not completely scare the shit out of white people over the age of 50. Somebody like Wesley Clark would probably be ideal - although Clark is a Clintonite so it would be tough to convince him - he's white, male, relatively conservative (for a Democrat), and brings a tremendous level of credibility on the national defense front.
I've heard Daschale mentioned as a possible VP nod since he has been quietly campaigning for Obama amongst party figures. The next best bet after that would be Biden or Dodd though either of them as a potential SecState would be a better play.

I love Joe to bits and will be happy to re-elect him as Senator this year - but I don't know if he'd make a good VP. He'd be good at the attack-dog thing during the campaign, but he'd go shooting off his mouth to the press and say some silly thing in the heat of the moment that just makes really bad PR.

It's hard to say whether he would step in line to the commands of a President Obama while in office, though. He's sort of an unpredictable guy, but then he was very much in line with Bush during the early days of the Iraq war. I can't say whether he'd have power struggles with Obama or not. But you can bet on a few foot-in-mouth moments from him that would make the Obama administration look bad.

You can also be sure that Biden campaigning for VP would be really, really entertaining.

mingo · Post by **mingo** » 2008-02-08 12:37am

Androsphinx wrote:I was just thinking - wouldn't Bill Richardson make a good VP for Obama. Seeing how Obama has been doing poorly with women (but wouldn't against McCain) and Hispanics (which he might well do, seeing how he's black, and the hispanic community has been moving to the right in recent years), as well as providing some real experience of executive power?

Plus he doesn't really look or sound Hispanic, which would negate to a certain extent the problem of running with two minority candidates.

That IS a really good choice!