In a phone interview with FOX News, Barack Obama’s deputy campaign manager, Steve Hildebrand said: “John McCain is right. Things are tightening in the battleground states.”

FOX News obtained a copy of a memo Hildebrand sent to long-standing Democratic operatives on Tuesday.

The memo, shown below, reveals the extensive get-out-the-vote efforts Obama’s team has underway and “urgent” needs that have yet to be met.

Hildebrand told FOX News he sent the memo out to boost efforts in Florida but that similar memos were also sent out seeking help in North Carolina, Georgia and Ohio. He said needs were less acute in Pennsylvania.

Hildebrand said the campaign disregards current state polls showing Obama ahead.

“They were not always a good indicator in the primaries so we’re working hard now. We feel good but we always need more help in the field. On the ground in these states, things feel like they are tightening.”

Hildebrand’s memo begins now:

” Friends – Please take the time to read this.

After two years of working with Barack, I’ve been down in Miami now for about four weeks helping put together our final push for getting out the vote. Early voting started 8 days ago and we feel like we have a slight early advantage — but we are urgent. Polls for the last couple of weeks have given us a small lead of 4-5 points. If we are successful in getting out the massive numbers of voters that live here in Florida, Barack will win this state and make history.

We have last minute needs and I need your help. Here are our urgent needs:

1. People who are willing to come to Florida to do key GOTV activities of knocking on doors and making phone calls — this is our single biggest need. We don’t need anyone who wants to come down and hang out — we need workers. There are 600,000 African Americans who were registered to vote in 2004 who did not vote; 900,000 registered voters under the age of 35 who did not vote in 2004 and around 400,000 Hispanics who were registered but didn’t vote in 2004. These are key groups for us and with poor voting history, a special effort needs to be made. There are also 900,000 newly registered voters in the state — a large number are Democrats and Independents who we also need to pay special attention to. We will take anyone who is willing to talk to voters — and in Florida, with such a diverse population, we could use as many diverse people as possible. Spanish-speaking and those who speak Creole are in high demand.

2. We also need help with our Faith Outreach Program — people who will be here before Sunday morning to attend services, possibly speak on behalf of Barack Obama and help with GOTV churches and African American voters in general. We also need help with Hispanic churches, progressive denominations like Episcopal, United Church of Christ, etc.

3. We need experienced people who can help with inner-city GOTV efforts – mostly African American and Hispanic.

4. We need a few people who can help with GOTV logistics — creating walk packets, managing phone banks, running transportation systems, etc.

5. Attorney who can help with voter protection.

6. I’m sure there are other things we need that I’m not thinking about right now — but the bottom line is we need help.

There is a lot at stake here — 27 electoral votes, but also the future of building Florida into a majority Democratic state in the years to come. After an aggressive voter registration program here, Democrats now have a registration advantage of around 650,000 voters. In 2010, there will be critical races to oust Governor Christ and Senator Martinez. In 2012, after a new census, redistricting will take place and Democrats need to have a serious role in drawing the map. Florida is likely to pick up 3-4 new congressional seats, which means 3-4 additional electoral votes, making it even more important to keeping a U.S. House majority and an increased role in presidential races to come.

Winning Florida could be what gets Barack over the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. But it will also be a major moral boost and provide momentum for Florida Democrats to build and succeed in the future.”

Share

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.

GARRETT: You just talked about taking on the oil companies. You have a piece of legislation before the Senate now that would try to achieve a federal gasoline tax, summer holiday, starting on May 26th. That’s 14 — well — whatever how many days away. Fourteen days away.

What are you personally going to do on the floor of the Senate to make that something more than just a campaign promise or rhetoric, which your opponent, Senator Obama, dismisses it as?

CLINTON: Well, I’ve talked with some of my colleagues. And this is legislation I introduced with Senator Menendez from New Jersey. I just voted for an energy bill yesterday that we hope will have some impact on price.

GARRETT: But this is your idea. This has been a huge part of what the arc of the conversation on the trail has been in the last couple of weeks.

CLINTON: Right.

GARRETT: What are you going to do to tell people, I’m a fighter on the trail, but I’m also a fighter on the floor of the Senate?

CLINTON: Well, I made my case for it. I don’t have the votes for it. I’m not the president.

If I were the president, I would have the votes for it and we would be working very hard to implement it. So I have supported other people’s ideas. That’s the way the Senate works. Sometimes your ideas are supported, sometimes they’re not.

But in the absence of presidential leadership — and of course it’s likely President Bush is going to veto even what the Senate has passed because he doesn’t like what’s in there. In the absence of presidential leadership that will take on the oil companies, we’re not going to get anything done. And I think it’s really unfortunate, because people are hurting right now.

I am all in favor of long-term solutions to our energy dependence. But what about people who are just wondering how they’re going to be able to make, you know, ends meet?

When I was in Logan, West Virginia, I talked about how we need to help people, commuters. How people who use their cars and trucks for their living need help, especially independent truckers.

And then I was shaking hands with people, and a group of women said, “We’re nurses. We’re home health nurses. We’ve had to cut out some patients that we would ordinarily see because we can’t afford to drive to see them,” because in a place like West Virginia, you drive to survive. So this is having an impact on so many other facets of our lives.

I believe it’s a good idea. I’m going to keep promoting it. I don’t have the votes for it now. I don’t have a president who would sign it. But I think it is something that people who are out there looking for some relief right now agree with.

GARRETT: So it’s a dead end. Is there another idea you have to do something for this summer? A second stimulus package, something else?

CLINTON: Well, I have voted to do something that I said I wanted to do yesterday, which was to quit putting oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I am also pushing hard that we do an investigation into the oil traders, the speculators.

I think they are driving up the cost. I think it is also important that as we look at what we need to do, we begin to take on OPEC. Now some of that we can do congressionally, a lot of it we can’t do without
presidential leadership.

But I think it’s time for people in Washington to come up with solutions for the everyday problems that Americans have, and not just say, well, we’ll get to that, you know, sometime down the road.

We never get to it down the road. People live in the here and now and they should be able to count on their elected officials to take care of the here and now.

GARRETT: Speaking of the here and now, a man you know well, Roy Romer, told me yesterday: “The math is controlling and the math is against Senator Clinton.” And he said: “I’m a mountain climber and I know sometimes you’re on a mountain, and for the good of the party and for the good of those who are climbing with you, if you can’t make it to the summit, you’ve got to come back down.”

He believes that is a place your campaign is in right now. Why is he incorrect?

CLINTON: Well, the delegate race is still very close. And people forget, superdelegates are not bound to do anything. They don’t have to make a decision. They can wait and watch. They can wait until the convention. They can change their mind a dozen times between now and the convention.

We’re going to see this through in terms of all of the contests yet to be voted on. We’re going to see what happens when both Michigan and Florida are seated. The number of delegates you have to get is 2,210.

Because if we leave out Michigan and Florida, we will be handicapping our party, neither of us is close to 2,210. So let’s see where we are on June 3rd, we’ll see how close we are to the summit or not.

GARRETT: Speaking of superdelegates, the tide has been to Senator Obama recently. He has picked up, I believe, 10 superdelegates, who, as you just said, can change their mind. They were originally for you, they’re now for him.

I don’t believe there is a single superdelegate that was once for Obama that’s now for you. It does appear, does it not, that there is a wave in his direction. And does that not signal something to you about not only the pledged delegates, but about these party leaders and their preferences?

CLINTON: Well, but this is a numbers calculation. Nobody has the numbers yet. So are we in the last two minutes of a game that you don’t think one or the other can win? You go to the buzzer, maybe it goes into overtime. We don’t know, Major.

And until it’s over, it’s not over. As I said the other night, quoting from an e-mail that a young woman sent me, “it’s not over ’til the lady in the pantsuit says it’s over.” I’m going to compete in these upcoming contests. I’m going to make the case that Michigan and Florida should seat their delegates.

And then we’ll see where we are.

GARRETT: You said overtime. Does overtime last until the convention floor?

CLINTON: Well, we’re going to — let’s take it a step at a time. Let’s take where we are now. We’re going to go into Kentucky and Oregon next week, he’ll do well in Oregon, I expect to do well in Kentucky. We’ll go on to Puerto Rico, we’ll go on to Montana and South Dakota.

May 31st, the Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet about how to resolve Michigan and Florida. We’re going to have a lot more information on January 4th — on the June 4th, I mean, until — than we do right now.

GARRETT: The convention concludes on August 28th, 2008. Do you know what anniversary that is?

CLINTON: I don’t.

GARRETT: The 45th anniversary of the “I Have a Dream” speech. And I’ve talked to many Democrats who cannot conceive of a situation in which the Democratic Party would not have an African-American, who is so close to the nomination at this point, not deliver the acceptance speech on that day in that resonant moment of history.

What’s your reaction to that?

CLINTON: That may very well be what happens, and it would be wonderful for our party and our country. It has been an extraordinary election to have the first African-American and the first woman this close to being the nominee of the Democratic Party.

I have said on many, many occasions, I am honored to be part of this process. I will be in that hall cheering if that is the case. I would expect Senator Obama will be cheering if I’m making the speech.

At some point there will be a nominee. We don’t have one yet. And what I hear and a recent poll suggested, among Democrats, 64 percent of Democrats want this to continue until completion.

That’s the feeling I get, Major. That whether — you know, we have our intense supporters who are just totally devoted to either one of us. And oftentimes they’re the ones that you’ll talk to and they’re the ones who are going to be the most visible.

But for the vast majority of people who have voted for either Barack or me, this has been one of the most exciting and, you know, really exhilarating experiences that they’ve ever had politically.

I have 17 million votes. He has approximately 17 million votes. Al Gore and John Kerry came nowhere near having even 17 million votes when they were nominated. So between us we have nearly 34 million Americans.

Most Democrats, but independents and Republicans who have participated. I think this has been great for the party. I think it’s great for our country. I was talking with some people the other day in West Virginia, they’re actually talking about the economy and cited some of the issues that they used to get diverted around, that Republicans always use to damage Democrats.

They’re actually talking about, you know, what about this gas tax holiday? How are we going to cover everybody with health insurance? What are we going to do to make college affordable?

That’s what our debate in our American political system should be about. And that’s what this campaign has caused.

GARRETT: And for those Democrats who fear your continued presence in this campaign as an effort to deny Barack Obama that moment, deny the party that moment, deny the country that moment, you would say what?

CLINTON: I would say we’re going to have a nominee based on one of us getting to 2,210 delegate votes. That’s what it takes to be the nominee of the Democratic Party. Once that happens, we will close ranks.

I will work my heart out to make sure we elect the Democratic nominee president, because this is not just an exercise in who becomes the nominee, this is supposed to lay the groundwork for us to take back the White House. That is what is most important to me. That is what I’m totally intent upon doing.

But we don’t have a nominee yet. And until we do, I’m going to be making my case.

GARRETT: Why should the country be comfortable with you running a federal budget with a campaign that’s about $20 million in debt?

CLINTON: Well, I think campaigns have had, you know, lots of challenges. I happen to have raised more money than anybody who has ever run for office, except my opponent.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: So I think that the fact is it has been an amazing campaign on both sides. He has had a tremendous advantage in a lot of the states, outspending me three, four to one in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, but not able to close the deal.

I mean, when you’re outspent that much and you don’t win, I think that says something. So the fact that, yes, I’ve dipped into my resources and, you know, we’re going to continue to count on the generosity and the conviction of people who support my campaign, then go to hillaryclinton.com and make that contribution.

It’s all part of how we’re going to finish up this race.

GARRETT: What’s more important, party unity or having that debt retired?

CLINTON: Oh, party unity. We’ve got to win. I mean, my goal…

GARRETT: Is there a transaction built in there somewhere?

CLINTON: No, nothing that I have any intention of pursuing. I’m committed to trying to get the nomination. And as the nominee, will take care of all of that. Because I believe that it’s important to continue to make my case.

I would not be sitting here, I would not be competing if I did not believe I would be the stronger president and the stronger candidate against John McCain. Some people agree with me, about 17 million of them, some people don’t, about 17 million of them.

We’ve never had a contest like this. And I think it has been a privilege to participate in it, and eventually, some time in the next weeks, we’ll have a nominee.

GARRETT: Are you ruling out any conversations about having your debt retired?

CLINTON: I don’t rule out anything. But I don’t think about it. It’s not anything I’m entertaining.

GARRETT: Under what circumstances would you run for vice president?

CLINTON: I don’t think about that either. I’m not entertaining that either because I am so focused on getting up every morning, doing what I can to try to get the nomination. That’s what I believe I need to do and until the buzzer sounds and there is a nominee, that’s what I’m going to do every day.

GARRETT: There are those who will say this new math, 2010, is different from where your campaign was two or three months ago and it doesn’t fit within the Democratic Party rules as currently constructed. That you’re changing the goalposts. Rearranging the field to your own benefit.

CLINTON: I don’t think that’s the case. It’s 2210 including our newly elected Democratic congressman from Mississippi, which was a great victory. The Rules and Bylaws Committee has said they’re going to resolve Michigan and Florida on May 31st. I think that’s exactly what needs to be done. I wish it had been done earlier because we can’t go to a convention and have a nominee only representing 48 states. Especially two states we have to win. The rules were that we wouldn’t compete.

There was no hard and fast rule as to what would happen when Michigan and Florida actually voted. Two point three million people voted. The Republicans faced a similar situation. They quickly moved, they resolved, they went on, we have let it drag on but it is becoming abundantly clear to me that we must include Michigan and Florida and that means we must have those delegates counted.

GARRETT: Is someone to blame for it being dragged on?

CLINTON: I think people were just figuring out what to do. I was very much in favor of seating them. I was also in favor of a revote in Michigan. Senator Obama objected to that and now it’s going to be decided where it should be decided. Not between the campaigns. It should be decided by the Democratic National Committee. Two Democratic National Committee members have filed challenges, one from Florida, and one from Michigan so we will resolve it and it will be clear what the number is that has to be achieved in order to become the nominee.

GARRETT: Must universal health care be in the Democratic platform?

CLINTON: Yes. Absolutely. This is a core value.

GARRETT: Will you fight for it to be a plank if you are not the nominee?

CLINTON: Absolutely. I believe with all my heart that if the Democratic Party doesn’t stand for universal healthcare, we are advocating a cherished value going back to Harry Truman that has been part of what we fight for and what we believe in.

GARRETT: So if you’re not the nominee you will fight to have your health care plan, not Barack Obama’s as part of the platform.

CLINTON: It doesn’t have to be my health care plan but it has to be a commitment to universal health care. I have a universal health care plan. He does not. There are a number of universal health care plans that
others have proposed but the overriding goal is to make sure our platform puts forth a commitment to universal health care.

GARRETT: Senator Clinton, always a pleasure.

CLINTON: Good to talk to you.

GARRETT: Thank you very much.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

Share

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.

In response, Obama’s team says the following:

Unlike Hillary, Obama never voted for the original Patriot Act that raised so many concerns among civil liberties but did vote for a revamped version that made improvements in limiting certain broad government powers. On the ethics bill Hillary now dismisses as meaningless, Obama aides say Hillary is now at war with her own party leadership and good government groups who have called the bill a significant, though imperfect, reform.

On the Iraq war, Obama aides say the record is clear that, in the words of Communications Director Robert Gibbs, “Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 and if Hillary wants to debate who was right about that first, we welcome that debate.”

Overall, Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Clinton’s negative tone will be seen as “defensive, incorrect and 11th-hour.”

They arise, he said, out of Clinton’s desire to regain ground in New Hampshire in light of Obama’s post-Iowa surge.

Axelrod says voters have seen Hillary’s argument that she’s an agent of change and rejected it in favor of Obama’s consistent appeal for a broader and less partisan coalition of Democrats, Independents and Republicans — a coalition Obama built in the largest numbers in Iowa caucus history and, Axelrod predicted, would replicate Tuesday in New Hampshire.

Share

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.

Share