WaPo is reporting that the Clinton’s campaign is $20M in debt.

$20M.

And they want back in to the WH?

There’s nothing in the article that says anything beyond Wolfson’s confirmation of the number. We have no idea if that includes the $12M the Clinton’s loaned themselves. Terry McAuliffe was on Meet the Press this morning and said:

A top Clinton adviser this morning said that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is open to the possibility of loaning her campaign more money to continue in the race.

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, told Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” that he spoke to Clinton about the possibility of contributing more money and “she said that she would be willing to do it.” However, McAuliffe insists, “We haven’t needed it.”

Russert pressed the issue, asking McAuliffe if the Clintons will be able to repay all debts after the campaign is over. “We plan on it,” he replied.

Must be nice to have that kind of change. Let’s put this in perspective: With their first loan, the Clinton’s could have paid off my house, bills and bought me a new car and it would still have been well under 10% of what they loaned themselves.

What a working class family.

This is where Clinton’s dog foghorn to racist whites in Ky and W. Va. is headed. It’s a shame that the Clinton’s campaign is more than willing to revisit their race baiting-tactics of December and January with this. Especially since they are flat out lying about her white support. It’s sad to think that a Democrat feels it’s okay to implement a Southern strategy to win votes in a race she’s already lost.

What makes this all even more laughable are the blogging Clinton supporters who contort their logic to justify anything. Remember that for the past few months, we’ve been told by these people that Obama’s big wins in Idaho, Utah, Mississippi and Kansas don’t mean anything. Despite the hundreds of thousands of people who came out to vote for the Democrats vs. the few thousand that voted for the GOP candidates, we were told that “there was no way those states are voting for a Democrat in November.” Why? Oh, the reasons change and facts are fudged, but they say, “Those states haven’t voted for a Democratic president in ### years.” Needless to say, I was shocked to see that Jerome Armstrong, among other Clinton-supporting bloggers pushing that W. Va is in play because they gave Kennedy the nod in 1960.

THUD.

1960.

You read that right. W. Va. hasn’t voted for a Democratic president in 48 years and that means it’s great for Clinton’s chances in Nov., but the states that Obama has won, but haven’t voted for a Democratic president in 20, 30, or 40 years are not in play.

The stupid is strong in this one.

Gah…it’s still a PITA to post because this script that makes it impossible to post.

Anyway…

So far North Carolina has been given to Obama, as expected and Indiana is still “too early” to call, but should be a Clinton win if polls bear out.

IOW, nothing exciting for tonight.

Over at The Field, Al Giordano gives us some levity on what we’ve come to expect on these primary nights.

In the Don’t you Ever Learn? category:

The Clinton’s campaign is hollering over a WSJ article that states that Sen. Obama favored ending Federal oversight on the Teamsters. The Clinton’s campaign and the WSJ both made it seem as though Obama only said that to the Teamsters to get their endorsement.

The Obama campaign pointed to a piece from 2004 that stated that Sen. Obama said he favored ending this Federal oversight. In the tradition of the faux-NAFTA outrage generated by the Clinton’s campaign, they accuse Sen. Obama of doing something (telling the Canadians one thing while saying something different to the American public) that they’ve done. The Teamsters stepped up to say that the Clinton’s said the same exact thing to them while seeking their endorsement.

Sen. Clinton’s statement to the Canadians Teamsters:

I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.

Now that they’ve been caught out, the Clinton’s campaign is now being disengenious by making it about Obama’s statement on ABC this morning where he said he wouldn’t make blanket statements. As a commenter turnip at TPM put it:

Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.

These positions are essentially the same and whether it’s a “promise” or a “suggestion”, both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.

Today Obama reinforces that is his position.

Today Clinton attacks that position.

Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it’s another case of what is the meaning of “is”.

Posted by turnip
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink

It’s all really so many levels of smack me on the head stupid ain’t it?

Over at TPM, poster observer2 found this historical piece of amusement in the New York Times:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

That’s the headlines, ladies and gentlemen.  The money quotes:

“The voters haven’t embraced Clinton, so I don’t see any reason why I should endorse him,” Mr. Eckart said. “Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we’re talking about Democrats.”

In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.

and…

“There’s a real tug-of-war up here,” said one House member. “Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats.”

Which, you’ll note actually did happen.  The Clinton’s managed to lose control of the house in ‘94 and didn’t raise a finger to stop it.  Shocker, huh?

But I think this sheds some light on Bill’s recent outbursts.  If I may play armchair psychoanalyst, this explains why he seems to be sabotaging his wife’s run for presidency:

In California, whose June 2 primary will provide the grand finale of the nominating campaign, only 2 of 34 superdelegates, Representatives Calvin Dooley and Maxine Waters, have endorsed Mr. Clinton. In Pennsylvania, site of the next major test, only 3 of 19, including two Members of Congress, have done so.

Come on…Sen. Clinton started her race with the backing of the party machine.  In lots of states, the conservative/neolib/DLC party machine churned and worked in her advantage.  She had clout–more clout than Bill did when he ran.  To make it worse, the only reason he did win was because of Ross Perot, pulling votes from Bush.  If his wife becomes president, she’ll be forever in history.  He’ll be a mere footnote.

That’s why Bill seems to be having all these “late night senior moments”.

Yeah…I know it was totally expected so this is something of a yawner.  What we need to know is by how much?  Remember that 6 weeks ago, Clinton was leading Pennsylvania by 33%.  One month ago, she was up 20 - 22%.  The gap has closed, but we don’t know by how much.  There was a large number of undecided (17%) and undecideds have been trending to the old and worn out in these races.

As I said over at TPM, an Obama loss of 10% or less will be awesome and very good news.  The Clinton’s campaign will spin any win as A Win.

Democrats |  Polls | County Results
Candidate	Votes	% of votes	Delegates won	Projected winner
Hillary Clinton	61,203	53%	0
Barack Obama	53,926	47%	0
5% of precincts reporting

Take a bow, the night is over
This masquerade is getting older
Light are low, the curtains down
There’s no one here
[There's no one here, there's no one in the crowd]
Say your lines but do you feel them
Do you mean what you say when there’s no one around [no one around]
Watching you, watching me, one lonely star
[One lonely star you don't know who you are]
Chorus:

I’ve always been in love with you [always with you]
I guess you’ve always known it’s true [you know it's true]
You took my love for granted, why oh why
The show is over, say good-bye

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye

Make them laugh, it comes so easy
When you get to the part
Where you’re breaking my heart [breaking my heart]
Hide behind your smile, all the world loves a clown
[Just make 'em smile the whole world loves a clown]
Wish you well, I cannot stay
You deserve an award for the role that you played [role that you played]
No more masquerade, you’re one lonely star
[One lonely star and you don't know who you are]

(chorus, repeat)

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye

All the world is a stage [world is a stage]
And everyone has their part [has their part]
But how was I to know which way the story’d go
How was I to know you’d break
[You'd break, you'd break, you'd break]
You’d break my heart

I’ve always been in love with you
[I've always been in love with you]
Guess you’ve always known
You took my love for granted, why oh why
The show is over, say good-bye

(chorus)

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye
Say good-bye

h/t to TPM:

Hillary Clinton now has an ad running in PA with imagery of Osama bin Laden.

THUD

I…er…I thought that that was GOP territory. I mean, how many SOTU addresses have we played drinking games where we chug when Bush mentioned 9/11? How many times did we laugh at the inanity of Dick Cheney tying bin Laden with Iraq? Now, Sen. Clinton has concern trolled her way into the gutter.

The Obama campaign has a response:

Wonder how that’ll play with the Clinton’s?

One of the biggest jokes of the past week has been how Sen. Clinton tosses off “San Francisco” as if it’s a dirty word. We shouldn’t expect much from one half of a couple who spent an inordinate amount of time running away from the “liberal” tag just because the scary old Republicans tried to turn it into a playground taunt. Still, Clinton does have her supporters in San Francisco, so the way she’s been denigrating the Obama supporters who heard his truthful remarks and comparing them to “real” people, is so much GOP bullshit.

The out of touch media dorks were oh-so-quick to give a shout out to their blue-collar upbringings…well, that is the blue collar cities where they were born (near), though many of them are trustafarians who were raised in a different area. Their experiences with blue collar workers has either been ordering them around or getting their asses beat by them. The way they condescend bears this out. Keep in mind that these were people who were telling us that blue collar workers have no idea what arugla is.

Insulting.

So while the small town voter in Pennsylvania who was not being insulted by Sen. Obama’s remarks, is being puffed up by Sen. Moneybags and the Fourth Estate, the poor souls in San Francisco have to deal, yet again, with being treated like they’re so far out of the mainstream. In all these years where “San Francisco liberal” has become a Pavlovian buzzword to half-witted Republicans and even some “D”emocrats. I’ve never once heard any media pundit come to the defense of the San Francisco voter. I’ve never heard any Democrat stand up and say, “This is where we draw the line, the voters of San Francisco are people, tax-paying Americans who also deserve to be treated with respect.” Maybe we could even go all Godwin’s law or something. The fact is, that words taken of out context and/or distorted could be insulting to anyone anywhere. You know who the media largely caters to when they’re more concerned about blue collar workers, gun owners and the crazed Bible-thumping faction of religion being insulted than if black, Latino, rich, gay, or just regular religious folks (UCC anyone?) are insulted.

Let’s take the Muslim thing for example. For almost 14 months during this campaign, Muslims have been smeared. In that, I mean that some Democrats <coughHillaryClintoncough>, the media and certainly the unintelligent Republicans feel that it’s alright to “slime” Sen. Obama by implying that he’s a Muslim. Sen. Obama is the only elected official during this entire campaign to say that what these people were doing was insulting to Americans who are Muslim. The only one. That tells me more about their character than anyone Sen. Obama may have sat next to on a board eons ago.

That Clinton thinks that’s it’s totally okay to denigrate one group while ginning up false outrage over a distorted remark not aimed at another group, say even more about her character. On one hand I should be surprised, but then I remember that this is a person who has told us that black voters, activists, caucus-goers, young people, and states that she didn’t win aren’t important. This is a person who wrote off the endorsement of a friend for her opponent as “insignificant”, then spent two weeks publicly attacking the friend.

So, while she’s reminiscing over a duck hunt with dad that probably happened as often as sniper fire in Tuzla, we’ll do well to remember that even though she’s been a hanger-on in the upper echelons of the political class for over 30 years, she can still pretend to the a voice of the American people, while mildly insulting those San Francisco liberals who went to listen to Sen. Obama. Though, I’m sure the San Francisco liberals who are dumping nearly $500K (that’s 10% of what Clinton loaned her campaign!) in Pennsylvania this week on her behalf are the right kind of San Francisco liberals.

There’s no recap. It sucked balls.

ABCNews needs to know how much they fucked up on this one. You can call (212) 456-7777 or email them.

It was, hands down, probably the worst excuse of a debate in all of debating history. It was through no fault of the candidates. It was purely Assclown Hijinks with Chuck Gibson and Georgie-boy. Absolutely NOTHING of substance was asked of the candidates. I came in late and was still subjected to 45 minutes of non-issue questions on Rev. Wright, bitterness and flag pins. Can you guess the bias? There was one guess on Clinton’s lying habits. She actually said something like, “People are just going to have get over my habitual lying.” Oh…that part may be an tiny exaggeration.

Okay…wanna know how bad it is? Jonah “Iraq is Going Great!” Goldberg thought it was bad. When you have me agreeing with something Goldberg writes you know it’s bad. (h/t to idredit)

I’m no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a “fighting Dem” who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the “real issues,” I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

The responses from viewers on ABCNews gives you a better idea of how bad it was:

Jesus Christ - are you kidding! This is the worst sham for an unbiased debate I have ever seen - FIRE STEPHANOPOLOUS and GIBSON… and by-the-way, NO multi-miliion dollar severance package - make them pay a fine for torturing americans with their insane questions

Posted by:
j50george 9:42 PM

Pathetic job, ABC. Very sad. You had a chance to cut through the crap, but you chose to wallow in it. Lapel pins? Wright? Bosnia? All that crap’s been hashed and rehashed. And millionaire Gibson whining about capital gains taxes. What a travesty.

Posted by:
Yucca333 10:15 PM

Whatever they paid them to gang up on obama i’ll double it.they should leave the debates to the REAL news networks!!!!!

Posted by:
walchrs 9:43 PM

What a terrible debate by ABC’s moderators. I guess this is why I never watch ABC News. About 30 minutes was spent on Rev. Wright, the bitter comment, and Hillary mis-speak(which was only about 5 of those 30 mins). We then had to sit through 30 minutes of commercials in a two hour program. That was pathetic ABC. PATHETIC.

Posted by:
mr_sj 10:12 PM