But since we're talking proportional representation, they'll probably split the delegates regardless.

Still, very happy to see Obama in striking distance. Let's take it home!

"Does this poll include early voters?"

Even if it doesn't, if Obama surges here among the people who are still voting on Super Tuesday it might not make a difference.

Keep in mind that the early voters won't be uniformly for Clinton. Some will be for Obama as well- and for Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson, hell, even Gravel.

This has actually been a very short race so far, despite how long it's seemed- Iowa was less than a month ago! From a certain perspective, candidates have been dropping like flies.

Clinton can't count on the early voters- nor can Obama, for that matter. It's a bad kind of thing to fall back on.

All polls include early voters. And early voters aren't as many as thought. In Florida they were 25%.

My brother, mother, and I are all early CA voters, so, add 3 more to any Obama totals :)

This is great news. My only concern is the early voters - the mail-in ballots in CA. I understand that Hillary is ahead by about 20 pts with those voters, so Obama needs to do more than just beat her with the walk-in voters.

It depends on how big a proportion the mail-in votes are of the final tally, and Obama needs to beat her by quite a bit with the walk-in voters to take the state.

Things are looking good though. :-)

frankly0:
Marshall is pro-Clinton, he says it regularly..
as for "the cases where the Obama campaign was caught out fostering racial division before the primary in SC." Huh? You don't even make sense at time..

"If Obama were to pull off a win in the largest state in the country, it would completely change the dynamics of the campaign. And if Hillary were to come out on top, it could give her a large number of delegates to fend off Obama's advantages elsewhere."

The dynamics have changed; HRC is powerless to reverse the trend. The true story in N.H. and Nevada is that HRC barely won as Obama closed the gap to 2% to 3%. If this does not slow due to the debate on 01/31/08 HRC battle will be uphill! Love or Hate HRC & Co. have run a lousy campaign.

frankly0 - What is with the ranting? Are you OK? Someone needs a nap.

How about the fact that Josh Marshall didn't post this item?

If this is true, get ready for some dirty underhanded stuff to come from Hillary's camp. (She will say she had nothing to do with it though-unauthorized is the word that comes to mind) After what they did after losing Iowa, imagine what she will do to keep California.

Senator Clinton, why did you not have enough time to stay an extra 3 hours in South Carolina to thank your supporters and delegates, but more than enough time to go to Florida for a celebration that you previously agreed would mean nothing? Did your staff not get your flight suit to you in time. All that was missing was the "Mission Accomplished" banner behind you. Your disloyalty will come back to haunt you. If not now, in November. Thanks for running a great campaign. :(

An interesting dynamic to observe is that when Obama wins its by a fairly large margin, when Hillary wins its a very narrow victory and she ends up tieing or even loosing in delegates. In the big states where she is ahead he doesn't even need to take the state from her, just keep her delegate advantage minimal. He can then count on red/purple states where she doesn't fair as well to walk away with large margins.

That being said, Woot! Go Barack!

frankly0--Come over from the dark side. Obama loves you Frankie. You know you want to.

I suspect the Clintonoids will be out in mass force in the morning trying to spin away the front page of the New York Times.

frankly0, you are losing your fucking mind but still holding onto your condescending attitude. That takes real inner fortitude.

Frankly0,

Call the coast for some reinforcements. It looks to be a long night.

Don't worry, Hillary could have a great night tomorrow and then you can own the board newscycle for a day.

But keep plugging away. I like your sense of tenacity.

Keith,

The NYT story looks bad and will probably play bad for the Clintons. Substantially they do not have much proof from my reading, though. Essentially it could be completely innocent or very, very bad.

Of course the bit about endorsing the Kazak president-for-life for vote monitoring is just ludicrous so Clinton should rightfully get heaps of scorn for that one.

The fact remains that there were real live voters in Florida that went to the polls, so determined to try to have their views known that they were not deterred by the fact that they would not receive delegates. They played no role whatever in that fact. It was purely a dispute between Democratic organizations.

If Mrs. Clinton felt so strongly about Florida, why did she agree to disenfranchise them in the first place? I think this goes to the heart of the judgment thing that keeps coming up. She showed poor judgment when it mattered, then did way too little too late.

Poor judgment or typical self-serving politics..? I really can't decide but you seem to be making the case for poor judgment.

I don't know if I'm buying these polls. I don't think it's that close. It doesn't factor in the Edwards withdrawal from the race. I think that will give Hillary a bigger advantage.

The link is back. The whole site seemed to be down for a moment. Mobbed by Obama supporters or killed by Clinton-loving hackers? frankly0, what have you been up to?

roo_p:

I agree with your reading of the Giustra story. All the pieces are there, I guess -- the intimate connection (a shared flight on Giustra's plane to the Ukraine), the quid (Clinton lands the deal for Giustra) and the pro quo. (Giustra donates many many millions to the Clinton library.) But Van Natta doesn't slam it home, and the story -- while definitely suggesting some kind of murky connection -- doesn't have quite enough evidence to make it damning. I'd be surprised if it has much in the way of legs tomorrow.

That being said, I find myself suddenly glad the NYT endorsed Clinton, tho'. It makes it hard to argue the Times is "piling on."

hmmm... vh, seems like you got some racist issues dude. Also sounds like you're a McDonalds regular or McCain supporter - can't tell which ;-)

Mike,
As for the Polls, the one thing I have learned this election is that a day or two is proving to be a lifetime in this election. If Edwards endorses, one or the other has a spectacular debate (remember there are only 2 of them now, so there will be a clear winner and loser), Richardson endorses (minor bump at best but still worth a trip to NM), or Bill has a damaging story on the front page of the Times, there are a million things that can change this race by Tuesday. Hillary will have the early voting advantage but if Obama is making up ground as quickly as these polls suggest, then I'll be dipped in shit if I know what is going to happen on Tuesday.

As an Obama supporter, I am always nervous, but I can bet the Hillary folks are too. Common ground at last!!

The last thing I will say is that the spin on the snubgate is that Clinton is trying to recreate the crying moment but it seems to me that there are too many moving parts for this to stick.

AS NOTED ON A ANOTHER THREAD ON THE NYT STORY:
Anonymous wrote on January 31, 2008 12:32 AM:

swarty wrote on January 31, 2008 12:21 AM:

Last thought on the Times story:

Swarty:
You are correct! Bill will become too much of a focus in the news cycle; this will bring back S.C., land deals, etc. If his foundation is transparent, no problem; if is not it will likely blow up on the Sunday news shows, and have some impact on the election. It is not the reality, it is the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons, love or hate them, do have excess baggage!!!! ON such matters folks are rather unforgiving these days!

Swarty you dream has lots of legs!

The thing I keep coming back to is the fact that Hillary has no sense of humor.

I've heard that she's funny in person. But they say that about all the super serious candidate. Gore is supposed to be funny in person too. I have trouble picturing it, though it got a little easier after he shaved the beard.

Anyway, Hillary's not doing SNL or Top 10 on Letterman, that's for sure.

Not that SNL is funny anymore.

Actually I did do my fair share of crack. Once, cranked to the gills, I had a vision of the future. I dreamed I'd be in a comment thread on the internet. I saw that a racist moron named vh would be lobbing lame, watered down attacks at me. I realized I didn't care. I picked up the pipe and drifted away...

It seems that mail-in ballots in CA were about 25% of votes in past elections. However, if the high turnout that we saw in the early states holds in CA, maybe there’ll be such a surge in walk-in voters that the mail-in ballots will actually end up being a smaller part of the total pie.

Given that Obama is trailing in the mail-in ballots, his success in CA will depend on his GOTV efforts. They need to drive up participation.

vh: you're out of your league

Since all Super Tuesday states are proportional (right?) it seems to me that the most representative prediction of the outcome would be a poll showing the aggregation of opinions in all 22 states, wouldn't it? Kind of a subset of the national tracking.

Is anything like that being taken?

Indy, I've been pimping that story here for about 2 hours now!!

Huff Post has a link to the Times piece. My worry is it is too damn complicated and no blowjobs anywhere.

With all the election news, it will probably get lost in the shuffle. But you never know...

My worry is it is too damn complicated and no blowjobs anywhere.

That wouldn't exactly be news would it? I mean I thought we all understood that came as part of the Clinton package. A couple of chubby interns and a regular supply of cuban cigars is the only way to control the Big Dawg.

ON MAIL IN BALLOTS IN CALIFORNIA:

Live in Northern California:
1. Bill screwed up big time in the final days prior to Nevada.
2. Mail In is for convenience as anything; folks long decided were likely to be unchanged.

3.Obama got $15M plus, a bit less than HRC in Ca. Obama T.V. spots stated 2 or so days before HRC.

4. True early mail-ins may be a problem, in particular with Edwards voters; don't think this will effect those under 40 years. A true generational divide; I have asked many in recent weeks.

5. Went to HRC rally last fall: was for local endorsements & a festival for local pols; aged boomers, suburban types and teenie boppers showed up for fill; FEW 20 to 40 year olds. In short it was a canned show; little local notice or press! But a whole bunch for Bill's performance on Nevada race!

6. No reason to be overly concerned!

I'd be amazed if the story doesn't have legs. There's a lot of ugliness: Bill Clinton makes nice to a dictator on behalf of a crook who wants uranium mining rights, who then gets the mining rights, and who then gives Bill Clinton $131 million dollars for the favor.

There's no way out of that one.

Hillary can't claim she knew nothing about it - not after 3 weeks of the old "2 for 1" spiel. Even if she didn't know anything about it, we can't have someone like Bill Clinton back in the WH making god knows what deals with god knows what dirtbag.

I am from NorCal, haven't seen any 20 yr olds waiting in voting lines in the last 12 yrs.

Hey idiot 40 yr olds are not youths anyway! Nobody counts them as one grp. Go back to elementary school.
You will soon Go AWAY and SHUT Up.

Keep winning friends and influencing people, vh.

Politics is surely your calling.

Yes, I like James Carville.

Josh really needs to start making people register in order to post.

There are things posted here few of you would have the balls to say to someone's face, which makes many of you cowards.

Truly, these comment boards reek of fail.

God bless and praise Jebus!

frankly0:

Yes, and complete closet Obama whore that he is, Josh Marshall must breathlessly report that on the front page.

If Marshall is the Fox News of the liberal blogosphere, why do you keep coming here?

DRH: I live in LA, and all my friends here (and in San Francisco, too) are voting for Obama.

And all my relatives in Minnesota.

And in Texas, too.

I cannot wait! It is so, so lovely to be excited rather than afraid. I am also looking forward to traveling and not pretending I'm Canadian...

Oh, and sorry,
5. Don't forget there is an ongoing financial scandal with Bill refusing to cough up the donor list to his library, which apparently has shown a significant overlap between HIS library donors and HRC's campaign donors.
Yep, two for the price of one allright. Folks, I have supported and defended the Clintons for 16 years but been there, done that, got the tee shirt, don't need another. Don't stop thinking about tomorrow ... GO OBAMA!

vh- you are moronic if you think "Big Mac" can beat anyone. Do you pay any attention? Go check out the politico.com debate blog and see how much his own party likes him. Or watch the GOP debate. Big Mac (what a stupid nickname, btw..he's known as "Juan" McCain over there...pretty funny actually) is too old. he looks tired and beaten on stage. he will look like a raisin with big cheeks by the fall. he's half-way senile and demented.
great stuff here:
www.therealjohnmccain.com

And Rachel - I feel your pain! I live in Costa Rica. I have a maple leaf sticker in my backpack, just in case...it's going to take a generation or more to repair the damage bush has done to the US reputation in 8 years. for all the bad things people here are saying about Bill Clinton (many of them warranted, mind you), he raised the US standing in the world. other countries actually liked Americans before Bush screwed it all up.

the nytimes shows that it is yet another M$M news source that gets all its jollies off attacking women. a bunch of single white fake progressive men who can't deal with a strong woman president and want a hip black friend

and you think people will stand for that kind of slander? broder and company might love obama, but voters love hillary. i'll take the voters anyday

Someone over at Politico linked this little tidbit. Interesting read.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080124/EDITORIAL/774081954

The New York Times has an article today on Bill Clinton's international influence peddling for the commerical profiit of his mega-millionaire cronies, under the guise of his "philanthropic foundation."
www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

It reveals Clinton's secret dealings with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose for decades has ruled his nation with an iron fist, crushing political dissent. It explains Mr. Clinton bizarre support for the Kazakh leader’s bid to head an international organization that monitors elections and supports democracy. The result, a mega-million dollar uranium mining contract for Clinton cronie Frank Giustra in Kazakhstan, and Mr. Giustra's immediate mega-million contribution to the shady, secretive Clinton Foundation.

To have a former president selling his influence in this way is simply shocking. And the resulting mega-million contributions to the shady Clinton Foundation and his wife's presidential campaign reveals the enormous scale of Clinton corruption.

These shady financial dealings, connections to the Clinton Foundation and the Hillary for President campaign need to be fully investigated and exposed. Does Bill Cliinton sell information he gains from national secrity briefings? Does Hillary contribute to the family business with classified information received as a member of the Senate Arm Services Committee? What connection is there between donors to the Clinton Campaign and donors to the Clinton Foundation?

Can our nation really trust the greedy, dishonest Clintons with our national security?

Wow that NYT story is huge.

Hillary and her campaign are going to have a hard time saying that's Bill not Hillary, when she is running of the merits of their close professional partnership. This will raise again the spectre of all the charges of financial corruption throughout their careers.

Is the Billary partnership really fully vetted, as Hillary claims? Is this the tip of the iceberg?