MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Senator Clinton, great to be with you.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much.

GARRETT: Thanks for your time. A couple of days ago you said, and I quote, “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Do you feel like you need to apologize for that?

CLINTON: Well, I was quoting from an AP article, and I certainly regret anybody putting any more meaning on it than that, because this has been an extraordinary campaign. Each of us has worked very hard. We both have nearly 17 million votes. We have attracted voters from all across our country.

And I believe that I have a broader coalition. I have won the swing states which we’re going to have to win in the fall, and I think that gives me a much stronger position to go into this nomination. But obviously we’re going to have to put together a unified Democratic Party and then try to persuade enough Americans to vote for our nominee so that we can win and take back the White House.

GARRETT: Can you understand how that phraseology might have sounded?

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I regret deeply that, you know, rather than my referencing what was I thought an objective source talking about how this campaign has unfolded, anybody would attribute that to me.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about electability. The Obama campaign likes to point out that swing states are also Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, states that he won. And they believe that’s a very powerful argument for his electability.

Why is it not?

CLINTON: Well, I would argue that caucuses are much less of an indicator of electability than primaries just by the very nature of the numbers of people and the broader cross-section of people who traditionally participate. So the primaries that were won by both of us I think are a better indicator.

GARRETT: Let’s go to Missouri then. He won Missouri, though narrowly.

CLINTON: Right.

GARRETT: No Democrat has ever been elected, unlike West Virginia. You can go back to 1916. But no Democrat has ever won the White House without carrying Missouri.

The Obama campaign says why doesn’t that count in the electability equation that Hillary Clinton talks so much about?

CLINTON: Well, I think it counts for both of us, because it was essentially a tie. I mean, I won 110 out of 115 counties. He won five counties which were population centers.

Democrats have lost in 2000 and 2004 because we didn’t win in rural areas. And I think that is a really strong indicator, because I believe that a Democrat will win in the cities, whoever our Democrat is. We will win in the cities because cities often have more needs, they understand that Democrats are going to do better for them than a Republican will. And certainly the contrast with Senator McCain, who is not someone who has been particularly favorable toward helping cities, will be a big help to us.

Our real electoral challenge is outside of the cities. And so look at Missouri. Take Missouri as a perfect example.

I won 100 out of 115 counties. I won in places that Democrats have to win if we’re going to be successful in the fall.

I won Arkansas, which is a state that would be great to add. I won Tennessee. I won West Virginia. I think if you look at the big states that I also won that provide the anchors for electoral map, I believe my case is stronger.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about West Virginia. Two out of 10 of those who responded in the exit polling surveys said race was important to them. Eight of 10 voted for you.

How proud are you to have the votes of people who appear to be race conscious as they select a potential nominee?

CLINTON: Well, I think the vast majority of people in West Virginia, not, you know, 80 percent of 20 percent, but the remaining very large percentage that voted, didn’t say that that had anything to do with their vote. And I think that is exactly the way it should be. It shouldn’t have anything to do with their vote.

I would hope gender has nothing to do with anyone’s vote. The fact is that I believe people voted for me in West Virginia because they need a fighter in the White House. They need somebody who is going to stand up, take on the oil companies, take on the insurance companies, take on the drug companies, not just in a campaign season, but has a history of doing that. And they need somebody who’s going to help solve their problems.

So, they really made what was a very careful consideration and determined that I am more in line with what they think they need in their next president. (more…)

CHARLESTON, W. Va - No headline speaks louder about Hillary Clinton’s intentions now and for the remainder of the hard-fought, up-and-down battle for the Democratic nomination.

Clinton also declared herself the best nominee for the party and said she wants Michigan and Florida delegates seated and left no doubt that the Clinton threshold for the nomination is 2,209, the number that includes Michigan and Florida.

Clinton declared that “swing states elect presidents and we win the swing states.”

“You know I never give up and I’ll keep coming back,” Clinton said with a timbre and gusto that drew lusty cheers here at the Charleston Civic Center.

No one knows that Clinton will “keep coming back” better than Obama’s top strategists in Chicago.
Obama’s tactical move to leave West Virginia to surrogates (Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Nick Rahall) blew up in his face.

As the putative nominee with an earned media deluge of “he’s the nominee,” Obama nevertheless saw Clinton roll up huge margins in West Virginia and give Clinton not a comeback but a credible argument to continue (and that’s the best outcome she could have achieved).

West Virginia’s Democratic Gov. Joe Manchin told me Clinton’s end-to-end trek across the state earned her valuable respect and Obama’s forfeit treatment may have backfired.

Manchin said the shattering turnout here - possibly more than 400,000 - is not only historic but indicative of a campaign that’s motivated, energized and rallied voters to the Democratic cause.

Manchin said he will remain neutral in this race and announce his endorsement after all the contests conclude on June 3.

As for Clinton, Manchin said, “She’s earned the right to stay in this race.”

Manchin said he disagrees with Democratic strategists who believe the length of the campaign has hurt the party.

“We had three times the early vote (absentee) turnout and we know a lot of the new voters we saw today asked for Democratic ballots.”

Clinton made a point of thanking Manchin for his hospitality in the Mountain State and reminded all in attendance they were together in Manchin’s hometown of Fairmont (just in case anyone forgot).

Before the confetti cannons showered the happy hundreds below (unlike Indiana where after a dreary night of nail-biting the Indianapolis confetti cannons flopped), Clinton told the story of Florence Steen, 88, who lives in South Dakota and requested an absentee ballot to cast in the upcoming June 3rd South Dakota primary. The request came from Steen’s hospice, where her daughter delivered the ballot that Steen filled out to vote for Clinton as an answer to the memory of being alive when women could not vote.

Clinton announced that Steen passed away recently but that her vote would count and her voice would be heard.

For anyone searching for motivation in Hillaryland, this story is a window into her perspective on the history-making dimensions of this race. Florence Steen doesn’t explain everything and her vote can’t alter the seemingly irreversible math behind Obama’s equally historic quest for the presidency. But for a candidate given one hundred reasons to quit, Steen’s vote - freighted with history - keeps Clinton’s wheels turning and this campaign churning.

The debate’s ferocity set a new standard for Democratic combativeness.

What America saw tonight was all of the pent up opposition research from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards spill out on stage as if from a giant, perforated spleen at the Republican National Committee.

Already, Democrats with loyalties in this race and some who remain neutral have fretted to The Bourbon Room that the biggest winner tonight was the likely Republican nominee (Edwards said it would be John McCain). Yet other Democrats found the debate tense but mild when compared to Democratic campaigns of yore.

The debate will test what the campaigns have been unwilling to test on the airwaves — the effectiveness of direct, personal attacks on each other. Every perceived weakness came under assault and each candidate left the stage more bloodied than he or she arrived.

The debate’s greatest contribution was the time alloted for lengthy rebuttal. This gave the debate some of its most sizzling intensity and allowed for dramatic policy contrasts (such as on universal health care, trade and approaches to economic stimulus).

Winners and losers can’t be tabulated based solely on the debate performance.

If they could be, Edwards would again emerge as the clear winner. His crisp, passionate specificity again outshone Clinton and Obama. This is undoubtedly the kind of joust Edwards desperately needed in Iowa, where he still had a fighting chance to win the nomination. If this debate happened in Iowa, Edwards could have contrasted himself against the aggressively nagging and negative Obama-Clinton interplay that dominated the first hour of tonight’s debate (of course, this kind of debate would never have happened in Iowa which is always why Edwards never actually had a chance in this race).

Sadly for Edwards and his diminishing band of supporters, his performance tonight, while cogent, will probably most be remembered for providing either comedic relief or a welcome respite from the Clinton-Obama sniping. The debate could boost Edwards in South Carolina, but since he’s so far behind here it’s unlikely to propel him to victory.

The key question, then, is if Edwards rises who suffers? Clinton or Obama? The Bourbon Room surmises the votes will most likely come from Clinton.

And that’s not because Obama beat Clinton. I’d call their battle a draw on points. But if Edwards rises as a result of tonight’s strong performance, he will more likely take support from Clinton because the arc of the debate highlighted her deep ties to lobbyists, her support for the Iraq war and, in general, the exaggerated criticisms she or her husband have leveled at Obama. Also, on issues where the three did not argue - such as poverty, Dr. Martin Luther King’s legacy, and Toni Morrison’s musings on the blackness of the Clinton presidency — Obama and Edwards were more confidently and naturally eloquent. Clinton didn’t stumble in these moments, but Obama and Edwards out-performed her.

Obama probably lost ground on health care because “universal” vs. “non-universal” polls off the charts with core Democrats (they want universal and, at bare minimum, the fight to START with the goal of universal coverage).

Clinton probably lost ground on Iraq and the stimulus. On the war, criticizing Obama for voting for war funds doesn’t make him a pro-war. Plenty of other anti-war liberals have voted to fund the troops fighting the war. That doesn’t make them pro-war. It makes them accountable to powerless volunteers who didn’t ask to fight the war, merely to have the equipment to prosecute it as best as they can. On economic stimulus, Clinton was first to unveil a comprehensive plan. But that plan did not highlight tax rebates. Hillary said they were held in reserve to avoid tempting congressional Republicans to reopen that debate over extending the Bush tax cuts. As Hillary must know, that was going to happen anyway. Also, many economists fear her call for a five-year freeze on mortgage loan interest rates will drive up the cost of future mortgages and thereby further delay any rebound in the housing market.

Edwards lost ground on trade and the bankruptcy bill, but since these issues are largely peripheral, the damage was less severe.

In summary, Edwards gained tonight. And since he and Obama sounded more like “change” than Hillary, his rise will probably take more from Clinton on Saturday than from Obama.

Obama held his own in the toe-to-toe fight with Clinton. The underdog, which Obama is nationally, always wins when the favorite hits hard and he doesn’t crumble. Also, Obama sounded more high notes among likely African American voters in South Carolina’s primary (where their turnout could easily exceed 50 percent) .

Clinton scored points but took several stylistic hits (drawing the occasional boo) and oddly acted as if Obama was more of a threat now than he was in Iowa or New Hampshire. She also appeared uncomfortable defending her husband’s recently aggressive line of attack on Obama (no one compares Bill Clinton to Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards in the surrogate wars).

In summary, Edwards gave his candidacy a boost. Obama took Clinton’s best shots and survived. Clinton acted as if she hadn’t won the last two contests and regained her aura of inevitability and combativeness suits the challenger better than the front-runner.

Net winner by a slim margin: Obama.

Anecdotal reports abound of heavy turnout at Democratic caucus sites and confusion evident over which site is the correct one for caucus-goers. Calls are flooding into the Nevada Democratic Party call-in center at the Cashman Center near downtown. Turnout could easily top the 40,000 state party operatives set as a goal of “successful” turnout.

Early results show Hillary Clinton leading in vote-rich Clark County but running neck-and-neck with Barack Obama statewide. Eighty percent of likely turnout to come from metropolitan Las Vegas (Clark County) and Reno.

One source of confusion: there are more tan 1,700 precincts but only 520 caucus locations. That means several precincts conduct caucuses at the same location. High schools, for example are conducting one precinct caucus in the cafeteria, another in the auditorium and another in the gymnasium. In rare instances, precinct caucuses will be held outside on the a high school football field. As you can appreciate, moving people to the proper caucus site would be a big chore for caucus volunteers well-versed in the precinct machinery. It could prove frustrating and paralyzing for people pressed into service at the last minute who are unfamiliar with the rules, procedures and logistics.

This problem will not go away today and is likely to spark some grousing about the final results.

But it won’t be the only grousing, I predict.

Early Fox entrance polls suggest Hillary Clinton may do well today, but those entrance polls do NOT reflect sentiments expressed by caucus-goers heading into the nine at-large precincts in casinos located on or near the Las Vegas Strip. Since the casinos are private property, entrance poll takers were not allowed to engage the rank-and-file casino shift workers heading into their caucuses.

Even so, Clinton had a nine-point lead going into the caucuses in the Review-Journal poll and there’s no evidence yet — in the entrance polls, precinct-by-precinct turnout reports, or turnout in the casino-based caucus sites — to indicate she’s lost that much ground to Obama in the closing hours.

I worked in Las Vegas as a reporter for the Review-Journal newspaper from 1986 to 1988 and appreciate the disdain all Nevadans have for cheap gambling metaphors glibly deployed by national reporters when discussing ANY Nevada-based story.

Tempting though it may be, I will avoid the corny gambling cliches as I describe the feeling on the ground here just about two hours before the Democratic caucuses begin.

First, there is some degree of unease in the Barack Obama camp about today’s result.

Second, I detect no preemptive triumphalism in the Clinton camp.

Third, the unions here are at daggers drawn and things could get a bit hostile at caucus sites on and off the Las Vegas Strip before the day is done.

Fourth, the Latino vote looms largest as the subset of voters most likely to determine the outcome. Public polls and internal polls in both campaigns show that vote splitting at least 65-35 for Clinton over Obama. The size of this turnout could spell the difference between victory and defeat.

Fifth, the Culinary Workers Union local 226 is, as expected, pulling out all the stops to help Obama win. But there is rising concern that two factors may limit Culinary’s clout in this hard-fought contest:

A. The endorsement may have come too late to translate the union’s organizing power into massive pro-Obama turnout (remember this fact: it’s much easier for a union to unify and mobilize its members on behalf of a fight for wages and benefits than it is on behalf of a political candidate their membership has little or no intrinsic commitment to). A key question looming over today’s caucuses is whether the Culinary endorsement was so close to the caucuses - just 10 days out — that there wasn’t time to fully mobilize union members on Obama’s behalf.

B. The lawsuit filed against the at-large precincts in nine casinos may have had two salutary affects on the Clinton campaign: the first, creating enough confusion about the process to render Culinary’s aggressive last-minute organizing less effective; and second, deepening pro-Clinton sentiment among Culinary members who disagreed with leadership’ s Obama endorsement. Bill Clinton and Chelsea Clinton just swept through the MGM casino and received a very warm reception among rank-and-file casino workers who eagerly grabbed leaflets Bill and Chelsea handed out explaining casino workers can caucus for any candidate — not just Obama.

Sixth, Rory Reid, son of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and leader of Hillary’s Nevada effort, has never wavered in his belief Nevada was winnable for Clinton. Right not, he appears as calmly confident as anyone in the Clinton camp. To his credit, Rory was calm even in the panic that set in when team Clinton feared it might lose New Hampshire and debated whether to fight hard for Nevada. Reid assured senior Clinton advisers Hillary could win no matter what happened in New Hampshire. Victory is by no means assured for Clinton here, but Rory may have been the one to keep his emotions in check the best and that, in the end, may prove very beneficial to Clinton.

U.S. District Judge James Mahan ruled against the Nevada State Education Association and other plaintiffs seeking to eliminate nine-casino based at-large precincts for Saturday’s presidential preference caucuses.

Mahan told a packed courtroom on that “I don’t think it’s up to me to second guess” the legally established right of state and national parties to establish rules for presidential caucuses. “That’s why we have political parties,” Mahan said. “It’s a vital part of who we are as Americans. These are vital issues.”

Mahan invited the Nevada Democratic Party and the state education association to reach an out-of-court compromise on participation for custodians and other support personnel to participate in caucuses held at schools they must open and supervise.

Jill Derby, chairman of the Nevada Democratic Party, told reporters after Mahan’s ruling there would be no compromise. “There will be no change in the process,” Derby said. “We believe this is a fair allocation and we’re very committed to it.”

Derby said Democrats would unite in the aftermath of the ruling, even though the lawsuit exposed rifts in the party and was widely seen as a proxy war between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

The lawsuit was filed two days after the Culinary Workers Union Local 226 endorsed Barack Obama. The plaintiffs did not formally endorse Clinton’s campaign, but senior members of the Nevada State Education Association back Hillary and the law firm that handled the suit has as one of its prominent attorneys former Democratic congressman Jim Bilbray, a Clinton supporter.

‘”I don’t think it’s been helpful,” Derby said of the antagonism the suit generated between the Clinton and Obama camps. “But we’ll pull together.”

Lynn Warne, president of the teachers union, said she was “disappointed” in the ruling because she said it created an unfair opportunity for casino shift workers represented by Culinary to participate in the Saturday caucuses at the special at-large sites while other workers — specifically her janitors — would have to return to their neighborhood-based precincts to participate, something they cannot do while they supervise caucus activities at the schools where they serve as janitors.

Derby said the party established the casino-based caucus sites to assist tens of thousands of workers participate.

The caucus rules were first established by the state Democratic party in March and formally approved by the Democratic National Committee in October. During the court hearing today, the DNC said if the nine at-large caucus sites were abolished Nevada might lose all of its presidential nominating delegates.

Mark Ferrario, the attorney who represented the teachers union and other plaintiffs, told reporters he was not sure if an appeal will be filed.

Two-term Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, the first woman to ever lead the National Governors’ Association, will endorse Barack Obama’s presidential campaign later today, The Bourbon Room has learned.

Napolitano has scheduled a televised press conference in Arizona for later today and will follow up with a telephone conference call organized by Obama’s campaign.

The endorsement gives Obama a nice boost in Nevada, where Napolitano is highly regarded among party regulars and has a higher visibility than most neighboring governors among those with a passing interest in politics — i.e., likely caucus attendees on Jan. 19.

Napolitano was named by Time magazine recently as one of the nation’s top five governors and was the first governor to deploy National Guard forces to the border to stem the flow of illegal immigration.

Napolitano also pushed for and won the creation of voluntary all-day kindergarten. She also raised teacher salaries and boosted health insurance coverage for children. While not identical, these innovations resemble concepts Obama has stressed on the campaign trail.

Obama is looking to convey to party insiders that the New Hampshire primary setback wasn’t devastating and that he’s still in the ballgame. The string of Obama endorsements since leaving New Hampshire has been impressive from a party-insider perspective: Culinary Union 226 in Las Vegas, Nevada Service Employee International Union, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Rep. George Miller of California and, now, Napolitano.

Do these endorsement moves votes? Culinary and SEIU in Nevada will make an enormous difference in the Jan. 19 caucuses — probably the decisive difference. Kerry brings an e-mail list of donors and cachet among rank-and-file Democrats who may still have doubts about Obama’s readiness for the Oval Office. With Miller in northern California, Obama gets a congressman with something few others have — a real political organization that can deliver votes. Miller’s also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top lieutenant and that association, even if arms length, helps Obama among party regulars.

NASHUA, N. H. — “That’s not change.”

Thus arrives Hillary Clinton’s new slogan, aimed no longer at underscoring her strengths but her opponents’ failings.

At Nashua North High School, Clinton said Obama can’t preach change for the following reasons: he said he would vote against the Patriot Act but voted for its renewal, he said he’s ended lobbyist-financed meals sitting down but the ethic law he touts allows lobbyist-financed meals “standing up,” and because he gave “a very good speech in 2002″ against the Iraq war but “in 2004 said he wasn’t sure how he would have voted.”

With each of these sharply pointed critiques, Clinton said: “That’s not change.”

By the end, her massive crowd began to chant the phrase back - thus giving voice to what the Clinton camp hopes will become a galvanizing cry against Obama. Clinton’s camp now portrays Obama as a false leader and empty prophet who mouths platitudes about change but has zero track record of delivering it.

(more…)

Hillary Clinton highlighted her antiwar efforts and embraced John Edwards’ $9.50 minimum wage as her five-day Iowa blitz drew to a close, a clear signal camp Clinton needed to do more than hop-scotch across the state on a “Hil-a-copter” and dispatch surrogates statewide to tell tales of the “human side” of Hillary.

In Grundy City Thursday, Clinton talked up her Senate votes to bring U.S. troops home from Iraq within a year.

“In the Senate, I’ve been fighting the Bush administration to change course and end the war,” Clinton said. I have voted to complete the redeployment of our forces by December 2008. I have voted repeatedly against continuing to fund the war.”

In response to a question about timetables for withdrawal, Clinton said: “I think we can bring nearly everybody hom, you know, certainly within a year if we keep at it and do it very steadily.”

These remarks left two campaigns – Edwards’ and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson’s – with the impression Clinton was now embracing a full U.S. pullout from Iraq by the end of next year. If so, it would represent a stark contrast with her oft-stated “safe and responsible” troop withdrawal goal that lacks a hard timetable. Not incidentally, the Edwards and Richardson camps see it as a massive position switch more in line with their long-standing calls for rapid Iraq troop withdrawals.

Of the two, only the Richardson campaign complained on the record.

“Senator Clinton’s statement that we could ‘certainly get all the troops out within a year’ is a stunning flip-flop from what she has been saying all along,” Richardson said in a statement. “She consistently has called for leaving troops in Iraq to fight al-Qaida, train Iraqis, and protect U.S. assets. Has that suddenly been abandoned? If so, why has she changed her mind?

“In a September debate, she said that she could not commit to getting our troops out in five years, let alone in one year. Has anything changed about the logistics besides her position in the polls? It is clear that she is responding directly to my latest ad and my statements that she repeatedly has called for leaving thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Rather than defending her position, apparently she simply has changed it.”

Clinton’s camp says there no change in her position.

“Governor Richardson knows that Senator Clinton has been clear and consistent: if George Bush has not ended the war in Iraq, she will,” campaign spokesman Phil Singer said. “As she has said, she would accomplish that by beginning to withdrawal our troops within 60 days after inauguration at the rate of one or two brigades a month. This would mean that nearly all troops could be home within a year.”

Clinton aides say she has not and will not abandon the belief that a “small contingent” of U.S. combat troops would need to remain in Iraq to guard against a resurgent Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

On the minimum wage, Clinton has now proposed legislation to increase the minimum wage to $9.50 and dropped that bill just before Congress adjourned for the year. This last-minute legislative move strongly signals Clinton feels the need to shore up support among working-class Democrats in Iowa and New Hampshire – households that once formed a core part of her base.

Edwards welcomed Clinton’s pre-Christmas embrace of a $9.50 wage threshold, something that for five months he’s called on all Democratic presidential candidates to embrace.

“Just 14 days before the Iowa caucuses, Senator Clinton has answered my call,” Edwards said in a statement. “But changing America demands all of us do even more. In this spirit, I hope she will join me in rejecting the money of Washington lobbyists that is corrupting our system and hurting middle-class families.”

As for Barack Obama, he hasn’t set a target number for the minimum wage. He has advocated indexing increases in the minimum wage to inflation. Campaign spokesman Bill Burton says that approach would increase the minimum wage to $9.50 per hour “as fast” as Edwards and now Clinton propose.

Poll tidbits: The New Gallup/USA Today poll today shows Obama and Clinton tied at 32 percent with Edwards at 18 percent. In four of six of the most recent New Hampshire polls, Clinton has lead with margins from 3 points to 14 points. Also, today’s new Strategic Vision poll in Iowa shows Obama at 30 percent and Clinton and Edwards tied at 27 percent.

Reading between the line in the polls. Edwards announced this morning that uniquely among top-tier Democrats he will be in New Hampshire — NOT IOWA — the day after Christmas for events in Conway, Laconia, Manchester and Salem. This indicates Edwards sees a real chance to win in Iowa and doesn’t want to neglect New Hampshire so he can capitalize on a possible Iowa victory. Of course, with Clinton and Obama in Iowa, Edwards can dominate the New Hampshire media market. But if Edwards were feeling uneasy about the must-win state of Iowa, he wouldn’t dare venture to New Hampshire and leave the Iowa media market to Clinton and Obama.

In a release, Edwards touts 80 paid staff in the Granite State, “eight times the field organizers it had on the ground during the 2003-2004 cycle.” Edwards says he can compete with “anyone’s” field operation in New Hampshire. It’s worth noting that while the Obama-Clinton battle in New Hampshire has ebbed and flowed, one constant in the polls has been a slow Edwards climb since mid-November from the low teens to the high teens. Still, he has yet to break 20 and probably needs to cross that threshold before the caucuses — which may be another reason to hit New Hampshire on Boxing Day.

6:31 p.m. NEWEST UPDATE — ON THE RECORD FROM CAMP CLINTON:

Phil Singer, deputy communications director for the Clinton campaign, denies any uprising from Clinton African-American supporters played a role in the ouster of Billy Shaheen, Clinton New Hampshire co-chair (see post below).

“That report is not true,” Singer told me. “Senator Clinton has personally apologized to Senator Obama for Mr. Shaheen’s comments. They were not authorized by Senator Clinton or her campaign. She made it clear that negative personal remarks have no place in our campaign.”

5:45 p.m. UPDATE:

Obama campaign weighs in on Shaheen’s departure. Says nothing about the circumstances that led to it.

“It is clear that the politics of false attacks and innuendo are being rejected by the voters from New Hampshire and around the country,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “Barack Obama is focusing his campaign on the positive change he is going to bring to America as President.”

MAIN STORY — SHAHEEN OUSTER BACKSTORY

Two Democratic sources tell Fox that outrage expressed by African-American supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign led to the resignation today of New Hampshire Clinton co-chair Billy Shaheen.

The Clinton campaign denied the story. It also declined to discuss the circumstances of Shaheen’s departure.

The sources said these supporters, whose names are not yet known, told the Clinton campaign they found Shaheen’s comments to The Washington Post yesterday about Obama’s admitted teen drug use out of bonds and offensive.

The sources said the African-American supporters were angry that Obama’s drug use would come up in the final stages of the campaign and expressed resentment that a high-ranking official with Clinton’s campaign would take out so aggressively against Obama, the first African-American candidate ever to have a serious shot at the Democratic Party nomination.

The crux of the complaints, the sources said, was that while they support Hillary’s bid for the presidency, these African-American supporters did not want to see Obama, who wrote that he turned away from the temptations of marijuana and cocaine use as a youth, vilified for doing something the black community tries so hard to convince other at-risk black youth to do everyday.
The issue came to a head in at least one conference call late Wednesday. Clinton apologized personally to Obama this morning in Washington. Shaheen stepped down from the Clinton campaign late today.