Interesting (and depressing) article on Bill's business connections. There really ARE good reasons we don't want the Clintons back in the White House:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=aKD3K5Dmu3sY

"It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions."

This guy actually has the balls to try and flip this around on Obama? Ponderous. Fucking ponderous.

even speaking objectively: is this not one of the worst-run campaigns of this election cycle? it has seriously degenerated to "Fred and Rudy" levels of inane talking points, leaks, infighting, and general incompetence.

yet is the largest and most significant example of Hillary Clinton's "executive experience" to date.

So there you have it. Barack Obama is being woefully unclear about his apparent plans to steal your vote.

Hillary's statement is parsing words. She says she is not, nor will she, pursue OBAMA's pledged delegates. She does not deny doing this for John Edwards' pledged delegates.

I'm not sure that would be nearly as big of a story as poaching Obama's delegates, but the carefully crafted statement should raise some eyebrows about what's really going on here.

This may be a very devious attempt for the Clinton campaign to turn the debate about FL and MI back around. "What? You won't agree NOT to pursue OUR FL and MI delegates? That IS what you are saying if you are claiming that they (a) either don't count, or (b) need to be selected over. So see, Obama is the one who can't be trusted..."

She is parsing words. She is denying pursuing Obama's pledged delegates, but what about Edwards' delegates?

From yesterday's NYT: "The similarities from a passage of Mr. Obama’s speech on Saturday and in remarks that Mr. Patrick delivered on Oct. 15, 2006, were highlighted by a rival campaign that did not want to be identified."

Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer: "It's now time for the Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions."

10-1 that he's NYT's source.

SUSA Texas poll:
http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=a727cce1-0546-4909-95cf-02f3bc9ab73c

Obama has been clear about his intentions all along. He is going to win the nomination.

Nobody mentioned this?

"The Obama camp has not yet put out a statement on whether they'll pursue Hillary's pledged dels, though they very likely will soon."

What exactly makes that "very likely"? I'd bet that they'll probably come out against pursuing pledged delegates, don't you think? If not, what's the point of having primaries/caucuses?

Just because the Clinton campaign is chasing it's own tail doesn't mean the Obama campaign has to bark in on the matter. Can't we just leave this at 'trial balloon launched, trial balloon shot down, damage control attempted' -- this little eddy of the campaign has zero to do with the Obama campaign.

It get's worse. Have you seen this?

Report: Clinton Campaign May Try To Poison Obama's Pledged Delegates

Would you like it if it is, at least, the pledged delegates really making the decision? Rather the superdelegates not override us? Sign MoveOn's petition to that effect, write your local superdelegate, and maybe even join a Facebook group.

Mrs Bill Clinton claims that Senator Obama is too inexperienced to be able to compete against the Republican nominee.

Mrs.Bill Clinton touts her thirty five years experience as the reason that she is better prepared to compete against the Republican nominee.

Mrs. Bill Clinton, todate, has won less delegates, and far less of the popular vote than Senator Obama.

Since she is having trouble competing with a candidate that she claims is too inexperienced, isn't Mrs. Bill Clinton thereby admitting that all she has accumulated is thirty five years of useless incompetence.

Since Mrs. Bill Clinton has not being able to easily best the candidate that she claims will be a pushover for the Rrepublicans, isn't she therefore revealing that she would be the Republican's Dream Pushover Opponent.

Mrs. Bill Clinton at one time ruled out claiming the Michigan delegates also. What does she claim about them now.

I love how many of you are still willing to buy into her current statement about not intending to go after Senator Obama's elected delegates. We know that Hillery always keeps her word, so what her campaign staffer said today will stay etched in stone, right!

Could I interest you in a fantastic bridge at a very reasonable price?

Anybody have any info from the ground in Wisconsin? Any links? Thanks.

hey ThompsonLives - what pray tell is being debunked by analysts? that Obama didn't literally lift words from Patrick?

Instead of coming up with these "anonymous" debunking analyists, why don't you watch the side by side playback of Deval Patrick and Obama's speech. Obviously you haven't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M6x1H08aFc

"Anybody have any info from the ground in Wisconsin."

Yeah, there's a lot on the ground in WI. It's white, frozen, and cold. There have been sightings of voters headed to the polls, some stopping by the local tavern for a warming brew before casting their vote for Obama.

Here is today's forecast for Madison:

"This Afternoon: A slight chance of flurries. Mostly cloudy and cold, with a high near 9. West wind between 7 and 9 mph."

Link to weather bureau: http://tinyurl.com/2gdnof

So, the Clinton campaign denies this delegate move.

Maybe someone can get them to explain the registration of these two domain names:

http://whois.domaintools.com/delegatehub.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/delegatehub.com

Note the ADMIN contacts on both WHOIS.

You know what's really worth noting about this article? We have no way of knowing what question prompted this response, we have no way of knowing who this "Clinton official" is, or in fact, anything at all about the comment made to Roger Simon.

Greg Sargent reads it and parrots it back, just as he did with the "Clinton wants Shuster fired" story. It doesn't seem to occur to anyone that the "Clinton official" is not with the campaign, if it had been a "campaign official" it would have been noted, just as Simon does when he actually quotes a "campaign spokesman" Phil Singer.

We have a "neutral democratic operative" who pretends to be Hillary Clinton and then tells the reporter what she will do. Simon of course, doesn't bother to ask Clinton this directly to confirm this, he simply accepts someone else's imaginative ruminations.

"I swear it's not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate...all the rules go out the window." Well, no they don't "all go out the window" - the so-called "campaign official" is wrong. The rules very clearly state that balloting will be done as it ALWAYS has been done until a clear winner emerges. That is the candidate that wins the nomination. That is the purpose of the convention, to sort out the controversy and the stalemates and the problems of delegate counts. The criticism of the last several conventions is that they haven't been conventions - they've been coronations.

In 1980, Ted Kennedy citing the unelectability of Carter against Reagan tried to peel Carter's delegates away to vote for himself. Kennedy's political machine spent more hours on the floor and in back rooms trying to woo delegates than he did campaigning in the primaries.

Are the "super delegates" going to "decide" this nomination? NO. The super delegates have ONE vote just as all the delegates, and the candidate with the most votes WINS. For all we know, there is someone out there who is a stalking dark horse who will throw the hat in the ring at the convention and win the nomination. That's the way it works. It isn't the Clinton campaign that wants to break the rules of the convention it is the Obama supporters who are too lazy to find out how conventions work and then follow the rules. Like Donna Brazile, who threatens to take her toys and go home if super delegates get a vote in the balloting, something they've always had.

Oh dear, what do we have here? We have an Obama surrogate, Doug Wilder threatening riots at the 2008 convention if Obama doesn't win that will make 2008 look worse than 1968. For some reason an outlandish, blackmailing dirty trick like that goes right over their heads. Who in their right minds would threaten riots if their candidate doesn't win? Of course, that disgusting statement is completely overlooked, considered just a throw away comment by an enthusiastic Obama surrogate. How about a big headline, "Obama Campaign Threatens Riots if Candidate Isn't Nominated". Or do you think that might be unfair?

This is some of the worst goddamned reporting I've seen since 2000.

ThompsonLives - you are style over substance - can't even argue anything without a slogan...and that sounds a lot like your messiah.

Greg, a correction, as a New Yorker.

She didn't earn but squandered the honor of being an "honorific" Senator. She has done a few decent things- especially to farmers in upstate New York but evolved herself towards the center-right politics, using New York as a launch pad to further her political ambitions. From Iraq war authorization to the latest Iran vote- she didn't represent the State of New York when it really mattered.

That's the reason why he failed to get even a 60% vote in a state where she was a two-time senator.

But bottom line- I agree. For the length, if not for the quality of her political career, she doesn't have to be addressed as "Mrs. Bill Clinton" I think- at this point- it seems more like Mr. Hillary Clinton.

That's right, babian. Substance over style. I'm really looking forward to Hillary's "21st Century Solutions." I hear she's ready on day one! Obama supporters are all cultists, they think he's the messiah! Hillary wins the big states! The ones that count!

ThompsonLives - no, vapid is the best you can do.

OK, here's the reason it's a non-issue, like many of the non-issues the Clintons have thrown at him: They have as bad or a much worse track record on the issue. Hillary actually has been accused of real plagiarism--paying $120,000 to a ghost writer for her book but then refusing to credit her. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village#Ghostwriter_controversy ). When one reporter brought up the fact that has Hillary used lines directly from Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign without crediting him, the Clinton campaign said, "Oh that's nothing...they're married and share ideas all the time." I don't see how that defense is different from "they're friends and share ideas all the time."

This is why people compare them to Karl Rove--it's attacking someone else for your own weaknesses.

Ok hyper revue, I hate to "plagerize" your link, but it deserves some block quotes. I am laughing my a** off. This is just unbelievable.

Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign failed to file a full slate of convention delegate candidates for Pennsylvania's April 22 primary.

This despite the possibility the primary proves critical and despite Clinton owning the full-throated support of Gov. Rendell, state Democratic Party leadership, Mayor Nutter and, presumably, the organizational skill all that entails.

And despite a Rendell-ordered extension of the filing deadline that could be viewed as more than just coincidental.."

. . .

It's another unforced error, and it comes at a time when the Clinton campaign does not need any more questions about competence. But as far as I can tell, it will not affect the actual allocation of delegates.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/pennsylvania-de.html

Plagerized from hyper revue link.

The clintons are ready from day 1. Too funny.

haha, no worries at all.

So now that we have a fullthroated and unequivocal denial from both camps, where are all the posters from the first thread that reported this? You know, the ones who were telling all the Obama supporters that peelinng pledged delegates was no beig deal; it happens all the time; grow up; etc?

Oh that's right, they've defaulted back to the last talking point on their list: plagiarism.

Does anyone happen to have a link to the video, that ran on the network evening news last night, showing John Edwards stating that "since we can keep track of every one entering a Wal-Mart, we should be able to keep track of those who cross the borders", and the clip of Hillery, five months later using Edwards exact same words, and never mentioning that she did not come up with those remarks, but merely took them from John Edwards, without asking him for permission to use them?.

Does anyone ever get the sense that maybe there's more going on here than meets the eye?

Seems to me, although I can't put my finger on it, that there's more than an anonymous leak, perhaps a trial balloon, a retraction, and then a flip onto Obama (i.e. 'Obama campaign to be clear about their intentions").

Is there a deeper level to this? Something like the Clinton Camp stirring up dust-ups like this not just to distract the public but also to distract the Obama campaign, to waste their time reviewing delegate procedures, crafting media responses, etc?

I dunno. It's just hard for me to imagine Camp Clinton being so inept and undisciplined.

[Off Topic]

The one issue that really gives me pause, and has been more or less ignored, is why Hillary won't release her tax returns. She says she'll only do it once she gets the nomination? What the hell is that about?!

Funny, cause you have Mike Zahara, an Obama supporter and a Democratic leader in Nevada, openly admitting poaching delegates from HRC.

"I've already flipped 4 HRC to Barack in Clark..." That quote from Zahara can be found in the comments to this post on the Las Vegas Gleaner.

Obama doesn't have control over his supporters.

Let's see, some right-wing rag (Politico) quotes an unidentified Clinton "spokesman" saying that they will "pursue" (what, with clubs?) pledged delegates, and that's accepted at face value. Then the Clinton denial comes. Then the idea is that the Clintons planted the story that doesn't look good about themselves to... what?

Sometimes I wish for real conventions where things were decided on the floor, instead of all this bull**** gamesmanship.

I like the cut of your jib.