Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

FixCam: Is May 6 the New Super Tuesday?

Note: Please upgrade your Flash plug-in to view our enhanced content.


As The Fix digs out from the Ohio-Texas Two-Step, we've started to look ahead at the votes remaining on the Democratic side between now and the June 7 when the Puerto Rico caucus brings to a close the race for pledged delegates.

All told, there are twelve contests slated between now and then. Ten states will vote as well as Guam and Puerto Rico.

According to our rough back of the envelope calculations (read: do NOT hold us to these), Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) should be favored in five states -- Wyoming (March 8), Mississippi (March 11), Oregon (May 20), South Dakota (June 3) and Montana (June 3). Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) likely starts with an edge in Pennsylvania (April 22), West Virginia (May 13) and Kentucky (May 20).

Based on those calculations, the two truest tossups remaining between now and June 7 are North Carolina and Indiana -- both of which will hold primaries on May 6. Obama and Clinton are likely to seriously contest each state because, aside from Pennsylvania, they are the biggest delegate prizes left; North Carolina has 115 pledged delegates, while Indiana has 72.

In Indiana, Clinton has the support of home state Sen. Evan Bayh and faces an electorate that looks somewhat like that of Ohio. The state is very white (86 percent, according to the 2000 census) and has a large rural and blue-collar vote -- three constituencies that have been very good for Clinton. Of course, Obama has represented Indiana's next door neighbor in the Senate for the past four years and the state is filled with colleges and universities where Obama should run strongly.

North Carolina -- at first glance -- might tilt toward Obama. More than one in five Tarheels are black, a voting bloc Obama has dominated ever since the South Carolina primary. North Carolina has large rural areas too, however, and the economy (and the impact on free trade agreements on it) seems likely to be a major issue.

So, if you're looking for the next Super Tuesday, May 6 is your best bet. Of course, if past is prologue, May 7 will leave us with more questions than answers.

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 6, 2008; 1:05 PM ET
Categories:  FixCam  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Clinton's Blueprint for Victory
Next: Senate Democrats Hire Spend-meister

Comments

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Posted by: jreno8 | March 8, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

North Carolina and South Carolina may be right next to each other, but they are VERY different. North Carolina has a large college population and the high-tech research triange, not to mention a lot of artisans and artists around Greenville. There are a fair number of cities in NC with large suburbs.

South Carolina has more military and rural areas.

Posted by: corridorg4 | March 7, 2008 6:40 PM | Report abuse

in response to uofmdfrad's comment:"Obama will win NY, NJ, MA, and CA easily over McCain." I say not so much. NJ is my home state and I am a Democrat. Obama will lose the state and polls show such. A McCain type Republican will win here unless facing Sen. Hillary Clinton, who is well-liked in our state

Posted by: AM91091 | March 7, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I live in Northwest Indiana (NWI), and what most people outside of the area don't realize is that the three large counties of NWI (Lake, Porter and LaPorte) are considered part of "Chicagoland". We are in the Chicago television market, and many in the area work in Chicago. We are every bit as familiar with Barack Obama, having watched his journey from community organizer to presidential candidate, as we are of Hilliary Clinton and her background.

The northwest part of the state is heavily democratic, and far more diverse than the rest of the state. There are both large Latino and African-American populations, as well as a growing Indian population.
The area is also heavily Catholic, industrial and blue collar, but there is a growing community of well educated white liberals, many of whom have relocated from Illinois. (These two groups often come into conflict on environmental issues, with one group wanting increased economic development without environmental regulation and the other fighting for cleaner air and a pristine lakeshore.)

The comparison of Indiana to either Illinois or Ohio is both accurate and inaccurate. The northern third of the state is more like Illinois with the southern two thirds more like Ohio.

Like most elections, the outcome will be determined by the turnout of these various groups on election day. It should be interesting.

Posted by: yourladyblue2001 | March 7, 2008 1:02 PM | Report abuse

"These ignorant masses [i.e. Hillary supporters] don't read and rely on gossip from their equally ignorant friends to inform themselves. God save us from them and Hillary.I'll vote McCain before Hillary, at least he's more honest."

The quote above is exactly why this Obama supporter is the truly ignorant one. He can't understand why so many of us don't have stars in our eyes every time Obama speaks or appears onstage. Due to this misunderstanding, we must be ignorant and ill-informed as opposed to simply not fooled by shallow talk and unimpressed with his lack of experience. There are many Democrats who don't find him inspiring.

Posted by: Rounds77 | March 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Indiana is more conservative than most of it's border states. The state does have a higher density of campuses statewide than most other states as well. As others have mentioned it's more rural than other states, but there are significant Democratic strongholds in cities all over the state.

The problem with the view most have about it being Hillary country is that quite a bit of the blue collar workers in the state are not Democrats as they are in many other states, but Republicans or Republican leaning. The Democrats in the state tend to be typical Dems - educated liberals, young college-aged, and city-types. The rural areas are strongly republican, to a tune of about 60% in good areas, and 75% in bad areas.

What does that mean? Obama is probably going to be stronger among Democrats likely to turn out and vote, despite demographics strongly favoring Hillary. The endorsements of Bayh and others do not mean that much - the voters that gave them boosts are the swing voters in the state - which are the Republican blue collars.

So the question becomes a reversal of most other states - can Hillary get those Republican leaning people out to vote for her? I know for a fact that most Dem's are pretty damn excited about the potential Dem turnout that Obama can draw...while a Clinton ticket in Nov. will not help the party at all. They never have...no Dem has since Johnson.

So anytime you see polls in the state, I would recommend taking them with a grain of salt. Indiana is going to be an interesting state.

Posted by: einstein_pi | March 7, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Other than commenting on the something that will keep HRC in the race until June (after the the May 6 Fix New ST), this is a little offtopic, but someone please respond on how serious it is for HRC. I've always said HRC will stay in until the Rezko trial is over in June, but will someone give me a reality check on the Paul trial in LA where HRC has been subpoenaed as a witness? To me, it sounds like Rezko is still more serious because it is 1. criminal and 2. brought by tenacious Patrick Fitzgerald who skewered Libby. But, there's nothing other than innuendo so far to suggest BHO did anything wrong other than the 'bonehead move' of doing a deal with Rezko. Rezko will also fizzle because he gave to so many other politicians, kind of mutually assured destruction.

In the Paul case, it's a civil fraud case for $17 million, so there are no criminal allegations. But, it could still prove embarassing right before the election. Kendall is defending the Clintons (didn't he handle the impeachment with Abby Lowell (sp?)). The trial is supposed to be set in April and could start in October, ominous timing. Time to see who has the toughest skin I guess. Too bad for the dems bc they seem to be tearing themselves apart.

Posted by: BillfromLA | March 7, 2008 2:11 AM | Report abuse

In Indiana, Clinton has the support of Evan Bayh, Judy O'Bannon, Joe Kernan, and the state party chair. There are few real population centers (Obama's strength), and it's mostly rural and working-class. I think IN should be Clinton Country.

Posted by: mutanttoasterfiend | March 7, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Posted by: friendlyfire | March 6, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Someone needs to tell the Obama camp that millons of low income, low education whites believe Obama is a Muslim, doesn't plegde allegiance to the flag, swears on the Koran, etc. This is spread by Republicans and Hillary fans.These ignorant masses don't read and rely on gossip from their equally ignorant friends to inform themselves. God save us from them and Hillary.I'll vote McCain before Hillary, at least he's more honest.

Posted by: dochi1 | March 6, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

How about this?!? Obama is competitive in Nebraska against McCain. Because Nebraska (like Maine) splits its electoral votes between congressional district, Obama would, at this moment, win 2/5 Nebraska votes.

This would invigorate the Democratic Party in a state which really needs it and would force McCain to spend resources protecting his base red-states. That's incredible. Oh, by the way, McCain beats Clinton by 27 here.

Yeah Clinton campaign, he won't compete in those so unimportant "red states." Idiots.

http://journalstar.com/news/local/doc47d0862f59abb004556047.txt

Posted by: balthasar78 | March 6, 2008 7:49 PM | Report abuse

drindl - McCain isn't BUSH and either are preferrable to the rich vein of filth that would come to the White House with a Clinton Presidency. There are millions of us, Democrats, who have said again and again that we will not vote for Clinton under any circumstances and you Clinton partisans keep bring up the Bush boogyman, and deluding yourselves that we will vote for Clinyon as the lesser of two evils in the general election. It ain't going to happen! So far, the press has given that sociopath a free ride, but at some point all of those unresolved scandels are going to resurface - the White House records, Rose Water, White Water, the travel office, the laundered campaign contributions from both China and India, her and Bill's millions made by providing outsourcing services for companies, their providing cheap Chinese and Indian guest workers that take millions of jobs from American workers. Now, Obama has been too much of a gentleman to bring that all up, but the press has been flat out covering for her by not pointing this all out during the debate on NAFTA. I just hope Obama realizes was sort of ruthless trash he is facing and unloads this on Hillary...AND THE PRESS. I'm sick and tired of everyone covering for the Clinton's.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 6, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You have observed there are twelve primaries left, some in the media, the Hillary cheerleaders, seem to think only Pennsylvania, where she should easily win, primary of any importance. Hillary, to win the nomination, will very likely have to be elected undemocratically, by enough superdelegates voting for her to overturn majority rule in the pledged delegates and breaking the previously agreed upon rules, allowing Michigan and Florida delegates to somehow be seated. She will also probably continue her very negative, fearmongering ads to scare and dupe as many voters as possible, just as the Republicans did in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

So a nomination would be won in a clearly undemocratic way, by breaking the rules and duping as many voters as possible. The Democratic party would then be obliged to change its name, as it would hardly be democratic.

Posted by: Koreen | March 6, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

There is a reason why Clinton's hacks are telling everyone Pennsylvania is the 'critical' state and not North Carolina. They know what we know here in North Carolina, there is no way Hillary wins anything in this state.

Every last white woman I know in this state is pulling for Obama. Hillary is absolutely loathed in the south in general, and North Carolina specifically. We are the number one military state in the nation. Hillary is about as popular as Al Queda here.

I can easily foresee at least a 60% victory for Obama.

What Obama needs is a surrogate to start bringing up all the facts that Clinton is trying to hide about her past and that the republicans are going to feast on in the fall.

There is no way that Hillary can beat McCain in the fall. Only her name on the ticket will bring out the right-wing to vote in this election. Clinton supporters either gloss over or never stop to realize that Hillary is absolutely loathed by independents and republicans.

I always vote third party but I, like many I know, will vote for Obama on May 6th and in November, but will vote for McCain if Hillary is the Democratic nominee.

Finally, what kind of idiot would ever consider Hillary for vice president? She so desperately wants to be president that it would only be a matter of months before Obama turned up dead with a suicide note like other inconvenient people in Clinton's past.

Posted by: morganja | March 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

Ohio should have known better. Clinton will do anything, say anything, lie, cheat and steal to grab that Oval Office and power.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hZqveiBkePuvW4EqFy8HArFTE_qAD8V872O81

What a sickening, disgusting power-mad politician. I'm sure Obama's not squeaky clean himself in that respect (all pols are ambitious), but what a breath of fresh air he'd be if the Clinton robots could see past their tunnel-visioned need for a woman in the White House (which is the ONLY redeeming aspect to her candidacy).

Posted by: B2O2 | March 6, 2008 6:00 PM | Report abuse

"Exactly my point. If Sen Obama does not win, we will have more of the same whether its clinton or mccain."

Rufus, is that you? These idiotic comments are just so sad.

You really think Clinton and McCain would nominate the same Supreme Court Justices?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 6, 2008 5:43 PM | Report abuse

I am looking at the demographics of voters based on ethnicity, and it seems that Clinton is getting more support across racial lines except for blacks. Clinton wins among Asians, Hispanics and White voters. Hmm... maybe it is really Clinton is able to unite across racial lines. Any thoughts?

I am also curious about the Kennedy endorsement of Obama and Obama's popularity among wealthy white voters. It seems to me that these are the trust-funders who like the symbolism of an african-american being president. Unfortunately, the rest of us are not so lucky and we want the president to be somebody able to govern effectively. For us, the economy and healthcare are the issues of the day. I want to vote Democratic. However, for the sake of the country, I would rather vote McCain vs. Obama. I don't want another "Bush-like outsider" to win the White House, even if he is the Democratic nominee.

Posted by: CPCook | March 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Report abuse

POLL RESULTS FOR NC RACE

Chris, I don't think the NC race can be described as a toss up. The following results are from an Elon college poll (which polls extensively in NC on political and other issues). The results were announced Feb 22.

Among NC Democrats those favoring:
Barack Obama 45.3%
Hillary Clinton 30.6%

You can see a complete 7 page PDF version of the poll, including methodology, etc. at this link: http://www.elon.edu/level2/images/e-web/elonpoll/Feb2008_ElonPollData.pdf

Posted by: rjciardo | March 6, 2008 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The Clintons want to play dirty, then I think it's time for all the dirt to come out. White-water, Rape-gate, Monica-gate, impeachment-gate, Pardon gate, vince foster murder probe, pardoning of terrorists-gate, won't release their tax forms gate, and the dirty list goes on. The dumb democrats who are voting for the Clintons better wake up and realize that Hillary can't win no matter what she says or does in the fall. The Republicans will pull out all this dirt and destroy them and the democrat party with it. Wake up democrats, wake the f**k up!

Posted by: lumi21us | March 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"DNC Chair Howard Dean however, says that the Committee can't afford it"

Its not his problem anyway. He was on NPR last night & explained that MI & FL can petition the rules committee with a new plan to select their delegates, which the rules committee may or may not accept. If that doesn't work, it goes to some other committee that credentials delegates for the convention. In short, the FL & MI parties created their own problem & have to develop their own solutions.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This inspired me-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om9bGFHPpjg

This scared me.
www.politicalamnesia.blogspot.com
$100,000,000.00 in grants and loans to 'help' Chicago's South Side..VIDEO

Posted by: darlamc | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"I'm not so sure. A lot is ridiing on who Old Man McShame picks for VP. If it's Huckabee I think even Kerry could beat them."

Hard to say. I'm having a hard time seeing swing voters gravitating to a ticket with Clinton on it, whether on top or bottom. I'd really like to vote for Obama. But with Sen Clinton on there as VP, I don't know if I would or not.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Please, PLEASE pick Huck as VP!

Even Rev Sharpton would win against him!

McCain/Huck...a Dem dream team.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

"Well, then you will get a third term of Bush. McCain does not have a single position that is in any way different than bush's."

Exactly my point. If Sen Obama does not win, we will have more of the same whether its clinton or mccain. Most of the provisions in the patriot act were originally suggested by the clinton admin in the wake of oklahoma city. And hillary voted for authorization to use force in Iran in the fall of 2007.

Posted by: lazmsu49 | March 6, 2008 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Senator Bill Nelson warns that if Florida's delegates aren't seated, we may be headed for a 'train wreck':


"If they go to the Democratic Convention and stiff-arm the Florida delegations, how in the world do you think Floridians are going to support the Democratic nominee on Nov. 4?" Nelson told reporters Thursday. "It's in everybody's interest to find a solution to this problem."


DNC Chair Howard Dean however, says that the Committee can't afford it:


However, earlier in the day, Dean said the party would not pay for any do-over.

"We can't afford to do that," Dean stated on CBS's "Early Show." "That's not our problem. We need our money to win the presidential race."


Dean is right: the DNC can't afford it. As of January 31, they only had $3.1 million in cash on hand. Reports put the cost of re-doing the primaries at $18-$20 million each.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Nov 6, 2008 Headline:

Democrats continue streak of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 04:55 PM

---------------------------
I'm not so sure. A lot is ridiing on who Old Man McShame picks for VP. If it's Huckabee I think even Kerry could beat them.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinto is the way"

Nov 6, 2008 Headline:

Democrats continue streak of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies-
I don't think there's enough data to answer the question. 1) not all states have yet voted, which means some superdelegates can't be allocated by your formula and 2) not all superdelegates hold elected office.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinto is the way
Flip a coin in Denver. Heads gets P, tails gets VP.
Win in November.


Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 04:52 PM
--------------------
Sounds good to me.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 6, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

By the way, if it's an open convention, anybody here for a Gore-Clinton ticket?
============================


How many ways are there to say no?

Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinto is the way
Flip a coin in Denver. Heads gets P, tails gets VP.
Win in November.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Report abuse

I'm curious - teh economy if colapsing fast- no equity in our homes - no saving for a majority of Americans, no way to pay for credit cards, car loans, or mortgages -the government cannot pay off everyone's debt.

If this means collapse and DEPRESSION - who will be blamed - we know the people - they will blame the new president for not fixing it. I am convinced the next president is one term - maybe we should allow McCain to have it - we can then blame Bush for causing the depression and McCain for not fixing it.

Just a thought

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | March 6, 2008 4:47 PM | Report abuse

By the way, if it's an open convention, anybody here for a Gore-Clinton ticket?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 6, 2008 4:46 PM | Report abuse

People keep saying that the delegate math doesn't add up for clinton. So could someone who is better at numbers that me answer this- if the remaining voted delegates are split, and the superdelegates vote as they are currently pledged, and the unpledged superdelegates vote in proportion to how their votes went in their respective states, does OBAMA have enough delegates to clinch the nomination, or do we move to an open convention?

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | March 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

'I will not. And most new voters who support Sen Obama will not either! '

Well, then you will get a third term of Bush. McCain does not have a single position that is in any way different than bush's. And he has every intention of starting a war with Iran. And McCain, unlike Bush, wants to expand the military and add 100,000 troops. Since recuritment is down very low now anyway, where do you think they will come from? Young voters like you, my friend.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Jackson, you keep saying the same thing ... "If Obama gets even slight victories in those 5 states that you say he should get, then he has the nomination."

Neither D candidate can earn enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination outright. The flawed process you libs have created for yourselves will result in a virtual tie.

I predict a long, hot summer. Al Gore was right about something.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2008 4:41 PM | Report abuse

I like May Madness also--for what it is worth. :)

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 4:32 PM | Report abuse

If the past primaries this season have taught us anything, it is that there is no such thing as a "super Tuesday" on the Democratic side. Proportional allocation has ended that. Either way the vote breaks on May 6, the delegate split will be nearly even. So May 6 will decide nothing. It's goign to come down to who the "super delegates" believe will most likely head a winning ticket in November.

I also question your reasoning in figuring that the rural western states, like Montana and South Dakota, are somehow in Obama's camp. If you are thinking they are Obama states because of Obama's wins in such neighbors as the caucus states of North Dakota and Idaho, that's flawed reasoning. Clinton did not compete for caucus votes in Idaho and North Dakota. Obama did, that's why he got lop-sided wins in both states.

On your reasoning in other states follows, that a rural vote somehow supports Clinton, then how could rural states like Montana and South Dakota be a given for Obama? In addition, Montana and South Dakota are primary states, much different from cuacus states.

Montana and Sotuh Dakota have no significant African American minority. The only significant ethnic vote in Montana is Native Americans on the states seven reservations. That vote is significant in some of Montana's rural counties and can be decicive in a close lection. But are native Americans in either Clinton or Obama's camp? I guess they will have to come here and talk about issues important to the reservations, so we will know.

I can't put the June 3 states in any camp until we see how the run up to the primary plays out. If either one of the candidates ignores us and the other candidate doesn't, the latter will win. If they both ignore us, who knows? Likewise if they both campaign.

By the way, the news stories in Montana quote Democratic insiders as saying both Obama and Clinton are considering personal appearances at the Democratic meeting slated for April in Butte. Both national candidates (much less even one major candidate) speaking in Montana during an election is unheard of. It isn't a done deal yet, but it does seem to show that our modest little near-last-in-the-nation primary will have a new significance this year.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | March 6, 2008 4:28 PM | Report abuse

"...you're 1000% correct. I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination."

I will not. And most new voters who support Sen Obama will not either! Clinton has said she will send Bill and George H. W. Bush on a diplomacy tour- what would this say to the rest of the world? That US foreign policy will remain the same as it has since 1980, when H.W. became VP. If the supers give this to Hillary there will be riots in Denver that will make '68 look like a picnic.
Clinton = McCain, The real change candidate is Barack no matter how much Hillary tries to plagarize his message.

Posted by: lazmsu49 | March 6, 2008 4:27 PM | Report abuse

I don't know why we're even bothering with this charade. If Hillary doesn't pull off at least 10-15 point victories from here on out, she can't make up the difference in pledged delegates.

I know, I know, I can hear the braying of the Clintonistas now - Seat Florida and Michigan, the superdelegates, caw caw caw caw. It's apparent that the only way those FL/MI delegates get seated is via a revote - they're not going to the convention as is. The DNC isn't paying for it, and Florida isn't paying for it (maybe Michigan will). The only way they get seated without the revote is proportionally to the numbers each candidate polled in the rest of the caucuses and primaries. Again, for the sake of a silly argument, let's say a revote does go off. Clinton still needs monster margins to pull it off.

Second, Hillary Clinton is not the only female who has a date with destiny. Nancy Pelosi is on the cusp of establishing Democratic dominance for the next two generations in the House. Obama has showed the way on how to tap into unprecedented levels of fund-raising and party activism, assets that would shrivel up seconds after Clinton getting the Democratic nom via chicanery, arm-twisting, and doubletalk, aka the Clinton way of doing business.

Anyone who thinks that the Clintons have more juice than Madame Speaker is living in the 90s (and nostalgia is the best thing about Clinton). What do you think is going to have more impact on a congressional super-delegate thinking about voting contrary to the mandate of the primaries, caucuses, and the Speaker of the House: the untrustworthy Clintons promising cousin Elmer a postmaster position in Bumf**k, OK ... or Madame Pelosi threatening to pull him from a prestigious committee/subcommittee that guarantees lifetime incumbency? Did we mention that Pelosi is in charge of this year's convention, and she has stated unequivocally that the will of the electorate overrides everything else?

That's reality, Clinton fans, and you need to deal with it. It's absurd to accuse Obama supporters of drinking the Kool-Aid when you continue to subscribe to the wacko what-ifs? thrown out there by Penn, Wolfson, etc. Experience, brains, guts -- Clinton qualities extolled, and the same qualities that would make Newt Gingrich an ideal candidate. Would you vote for Newt, too?

Posted by: bondjedi | March 6, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what has happened to the 'christian' right in this country, but christian they don't seem to be.. i think it's the phenomena of if you mix politics and religion, you get politics...and religion falls by the wayside.

'Sen. Charles Schumer is a "schmuck?" It is unfortunate that Schumer and Schmuck share so many consonents and vowel, and the man is many things -- including a huge orator --but...

A Southern Baptist Convention leader -- of all people -- says yessiree that guy's a schmuck. See here:

A Southern Baptist leader lecturing at Criswell College used a gutter word to describe a Jewish U.S. senator.

During the Jan. 29-31 Criswell Theological Lectures at the Dallas school, Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, described Sen. Charles Schumer as "the schmuck from New York."

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

The Obama campaign as run an awful race this past week. Hillary and are slick snakes are attacking him left and right and where the hell is he? Laying low in Chicago when he's suppossed to be out there brawling and taking it to the Clintons so he can lock down this nomination. As a campaign donor to his campaign I'm really pissed of, I know he's still going to win. But he needs to win being a man and standing up to the scum that are the Clintons.

Posted by: lumi21us | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

You get right up there to the edge where I thought that you were going to do some actual math. And then you didn't actually do it.

If you're saying that May 6th is the new 'super tuesday' and that it will be so decisive, SHOW US THE MATH. Unless Hillary Clinton racked up insanely huge blowouts of over 40% margins in all of those states that you are putting in her column, she would still lose.

If Obama gets even slight victories in those 5 states that you say he should get, then he has the nomination. Do the math. I think we all know now that the idea of all the super delegates getting together to hand the thing to Clinton when she's way behind in pledged delegates is an utter fantasy, about as likely as them doing the same for you or me.

Based on your own premise of who gets the other states, May 6th really doesn't mean all that much.

Posted by: JacksonLanders | March 6, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

Anything but a negotiated settlement between Obama and Clinton will guarantee McCain wins. A floor fight would be a disaster. If a redo in Florida and Michigan give the victory to Hillary blacks will stay home - McCain wins.

It is now leadership time. If Hillary cannot use her leadership skills to convince Obama why the VP position is his best option, how will she ever negotiate or reason with our enemies.

Obama is proving to be stubborn like George W. Bush. On balance Hillary has more experience in the White House (does not make her better - just looking for a standard) After 8 years of Hillary Obama will have all the experience anyone could possibly claim he does not have.

Obama is saying no because like Bush he prefers nothing over not getting what he wants. Do we really want another Buch in the White HOuse - unwilling to compromise and look for the common good

Bobby WIghtman-Cervantes

Posted by: bobbywc | March 6, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Hey, it's two words: Tar Heel.

Posted by: EgoNemo | March 6, 2008 4:16 PM | Report abuse

It is not the new Super Tuesday, but it may end up being the Decisive Tuesday, that is for sure.

Posted by: davidmwe | March 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

CC: I heard Puerto Rico caucus is winner-take-all Republican type caucus. Is it true or false?

Posted by: YesWeCanForFREE | March 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Truthhunter writes" The "leaders" of the Dem party need to get together soon to straighten out the delegate/GOP interference mess or look completely unable to govern anything."

Bwaaaahhaaahahaha Too late, they already do! Even the libs are calling your nomination process "a mess"; that's the Truth, Truth.

Thank you, Howard Dean. Really, thank you, thank you, thank you for your wonderful example of Dem leadership.

Question: How many Dems does it take to screw in a light bulb?

Answer: It depends; if Harry and Howard are helping, the light may never go on.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

The interesting turn of events would be if the real Super Tuesday turns out to be June 3 -- when Montana and South Dakota hold the last primaries of the season (unless Florida and Michigan have a redo). The way things are going, that could happen.

Posted by: gerald | March 6, 2008 4:01 PM | Report abuse

"All this petty BS bickering and overblown reactions toward the other candidate between dems is really childish and depressing. Meanwhile, your president, is planning to screw whoever the next president is by agreeing to a permanent occupation of Iraq."

You said it, Drindl-- you're 1000% correct. I'll vote for whichever Democrat gets the nomination. I can only hope that they keep running that clip over and over, of Bush and Mccain together.

Posted by: dcgrasso1 | March 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Report abuse


From: Deadline USA
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/usa/2008/03/clintons_role_in_naftagate.html

Clinton's role in Nafta-gate

It was Clinton's camp that downplayed its own trade bashing, reports the Canadian media

March 6, 2008 12:30 PM

A storm of reports in the Canadian media say that the Nafta-gate flap last week involving Barack Obama was started by a key aide to Canada's prime minister - who told journalists that Hillary Clinton's campaign - not Obama's - had contacted the Canadian government to play down its Nafta-bashing.

The Canadian Press wire service - the equivalent to AP - reports that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Stephen Harper, was talking to journalists last week: "Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-Nafta voters that carried economic implications for Canada." It quotes a witness who reported Brodie's remarks:

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt ... That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Here's today's splash in the Globe and Mail, which begins: "The leak of a confidential diplomatic discussion that rocked the US presidential campaign began with an offhand remark to journalists from the Prime Minister's chief of staff, Ian Brodie." It goes on:

Mr Brodie ... stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV.... The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Mr Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the Nafta threats were mostly political posturing.

Posted by: ac11 | March 6, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

NC is more like VA than any other state mentioned. It will go heavily for Obama.

Posted by: jak2 | March 6, 2008 3:57 PM | Report abuse

cullendave writes
"the neighbor-state argument can make a lot of sense in regions where it makes sense, and can be patently silly in others.

this is one of the silly cases."

Exactly. Ohio is about 4 different states rolled into one. My perception is that the northern cities are more industrialized & boom and bust in time with Detroit. The east & southeast are appalachian / coal country. Pittsburgh is 20 minutes over the border, as is Wheeling, WV. My dad used to work in eastern Ohio, commuting from a Pitt suburb. His employees were mostly female, married to laid off coalworkers & happy to find a minimum-wage job. Cincinatti is across the river from KY, and has a taste of the south. Trying to characterize that state as a monolith is ridiculous; trying to take another state and call it 'like Ohio' is more ludicrous.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 3:53 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, if you've spent time in Indiana, Illinois, and Ohio, I think you'd be willing to accept that Indiana is more like Ohio than it is like even downstate Illinois.

More broadly, the fixation on "big days" ignores that the nomination is determined by delegates, and that those delegates are given out in every single election. So, sure, Hillary appeared to have a big night Tuesday, but when the dust cleared, she'd only netted four delegates. We'll probably see comparable delegate swings, perhaps larger, in the Wyoming and Mississippi contests alone.

The thing is, CC, you're pretending the race is still in Iowa, where momentum shapes the race for the rest of the way. But, at this point, we all know the candidates pretty well, and we've had plenty of chances to be swung around in a tizzy by momentum. At some point, the nomination comes down to who has more votes on the convention floor, and there simply isn't a reality-based scenario where that happens for Clinton.

Posted by: davestickler | March 6, 2008 3:51 PM | Report abuse

given the great college basketball traditions of both North Carolina and Indiana I would like to hereby declare May 6: May Madness

Posted by: churtmah | March 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

still no Obama blueprint and we're heading into hour 10.

c'mon CC.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile, your president, is planning to screw whoever the next president is by agreeing to a permanent occupation of Iraq.
-------------------
True that.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Iraq war more than Kellogg Brown & Root (KBR), which until last year was a subsidiary of Halliburton. The firm currently has more than 21,000 employees in Iraq, and between 2004 and 2006, received more than $16 billion in government contracts -- far more than any other corporation.

Yet KBR hasn't been passing on these enormous profits to American taxpayers or even its own employees, thanks to a plan that Vice President Cheney helped establish. Today, the Boston Globe reports that KBR has avoided paying more than $500 million "in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies" based in the Cayman Islands.

KBR's practices are extreme, even compared to its competitors. Other top Iraq war contractors -- including Bechtel and Parsons -- pay Social Security and Medicare taxes for their employees.

The Bush administration has aided this tax dodging. One of KBR's shell companies is Overseas Administrative Services, which was set up two months after Cheney became Halliburtion's CEO in 1995. Since at least 2004, the Pentagon has known about KBR's practices, but chosen to ignore the issue.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 3:37 PM | Report abuse

All this petty BS bickering and overblown reactions toward the other candidate between dems is really childish and depressing. Meanwhile, your president, is planning to screw whoever the next president is by agreeing to a permanent occupation of Iraq.

'Perino: 'Don't Know' If White House Will Seek Congress' Approval Of Permanent Iraq Occupation'

which means they will do it unilaterally, as usual, the way dictators do.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, I haven't lived in Indiana, but my in-laws used to. I'd put it in a different category than IL, OH, PA...

It sticks out as more conservative than a lot of its neighbors, so I think looking at the region's voting won't help out.

Just guessing, I would think that it would go for Clinton, but I think NC will go to Obama in a big way.

Posted by: rpy1 | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

cc - "All told, there are twelve contests slated between now and then. Ten states will vote as well as Guam and Puerto Rico."

And it seems more and more likely Michigan and Florida. It seems that these two states should start being included in the numbers games and calculations going on.

Posted by: dave | March 6, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

NC is a state that can put both Jesse Helms and John Edwards in the Senate.

It's the 10th largest state in the country in terms of population. But when it comes to primaries, the Democrats tend run more upscale, along the interstate population corridors, and the Republicans tend to dominate rural NC. Plus, NC has literally dozens of universities, some of them quite large.

So I think NC bodes well for Obama.

Posted by: starthom | March 6, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

THE FIX IS IN....
Barack just emailed me to tell me that he raised over $55 million last month!

Posted by: bradcpa | March 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Well, well, well, ....

Looks like it was Hillary who played two-face with Canada on NAFTA.
I think this may effect Pennsylvania, if not her credibility and ability to criticize OPbamas.

Americans hate a hypocrite. Male or female.

Wonder if SNL will do a skit about that??

Double-crossing snitch is the new black.

Posted by: wpost4112 | March 6, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

My family has recently moved to NC from the N.VA suburbs - looking forward to May 6! I'm a white, middle-aged woman with a college degree - and I support Obama! Even if he loses PA and some other states, I think he will maintain his PLEDGED DELEGATE lead. He has ALWAYS led in Pledged Delegates. Hillary has been unable to 'close the sale' by winning big enough margins to overtake his 140 to 150 delegate lead. In Ohio and Texas she was leading in most polls just a few weeks ago by 20 to 30 points - but her support eroded and Obama's grew - so that she won by only 10 and 4 points, respectively. She netted at most 10 delegates. On Super Tuesday she couldn't 'close the sale' by winning overwhelming victories in places like NY. Again, she has NEVER led in Pledged Delegates! And it is almost IMPOSSIBLE now for her to catch up after her disappointing erosions in support in Ohio and Texas. She would have to WIN EVERY REMAINING CONTEST by something like 60 to 70% of the vote! Unlikely. So, the Superdelegates will be reverting to the old "smoke-filled room" days if they go against the will of the voters and handpick the nominee. There has been RECORD turnout in the Primary Season for Democrats. We are HUNGRY to take back the White House. That is why this "Big State" argument put forth by the Clintons is bogus. Obama will win NY, NJ, MA, and CA easily over McCain. It is comparing apples to oranges to try and compare the NOMINATING PROCESS AMONG DEMOCRATS to the GENERAL ELECTION where ONE DEMOCRAT runs against ONE REPUBLICAN! Just because one Democrat beats another Democrat in a Primary does NOT mean that ONLY THAT DEMOCRAT can win that state in NOVEMBER!! McCain's name is not on Primary ballots - these are not mini-General Elections! Democrats will UNITE in NOVEMBER AND WIN IN BIG STATES, SMALL STATES and ALL STATES IN BETWEEN AGAainst MCCAIN!!

Posted by: uofmdgrad | March 6, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

i also shake my head at statements like, ''[state x] is filled with colleges and universities where Obama should run strongly . . ."

really? isn't nearly every state filled with colleges and universities?

i have heard this before about NH and WI and found it puzzling. does any state have so many colleges that the under-22 population of the state is significantly above the national norm? and how many of these out-of-staters are registered in the away state?

i find the idea really implausible. i could possibly see it being true in a few states, particularly small northeastern states which draw from beyond their region, and which have small enough populations where it can make a difference.

but indiana? with all due respect to my former neighbors, indiana is a nice place, but somehow i have never seen it as one of the intellectual capitals of this country.

this assessment of it seems out of left field.

Posted by: cullendave | March 6, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

the neighbor-state argument can make a lot of sense in regions where it makes sense, and can be patently silly in others.

this is one of the silly cases. if you're talking about Alabama and Missisippi, sure, similar cultures. same nebraska and south dakota or even NY and MA. for regions like the south, the northeast and farmbelt, who see themselves the same way, and who share common cultures, sure. but California and Nevada? No way. Illinois and Kentucky? you've got to be kidding. Even NH and VT--radically different.

i grew up in illinois, which is of course dominated by chicago and its suburbs, and Indiana might as well be in another universe.

Posted by: cullendave | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM | Report abuse

i find this refreshing and disheartening in different ways.

it's more media dumb simplicity, and more hype for a single big night that they can hype like a title fight or a superbowl.

but at least it's a refreshing attempt to pick some contests there are not firmly in one camp or the other.

(using TX and OH or PA as bellwhethers was unfair and just plain untrue. this is a step in the right direction.)

Posted by: cullendave | March 6, 2008 2:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris, got a question for you--it seems like the Republicans have an opportunity to create some mischief now that their nomination is locked up. There were news reports, I'm sure you've seen them, of R's voting for Hillary in Texas because they would prefer to run against her. I'd like to know how many and which states of the remaining primaries are open and would allow R's to vote for the Democratic nominee? Also wondering about Michigan and FL, whether these would be open if they were to have a re-vote. I could see where someone like Rush could motivate Republicans to swarm these remaining primaries and vote for Hillary, giving her enough wins in the final stretch to make the case that she should be the nominee. Thoughts?

Posted by: julie1919julie | March 6, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000lk.html
Click on "General Demographic Characteristics". 2000 is the last available data set.

Median age is 35. People aged 20-34 are 22% of the population, about the same as the percent above 55.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

the idea of holding caucus in fla which is decidedly more elderly in pouplation is ridiculous. Christ said Fla would pay for a revote now that they hear it costs $25 million are having second thoughts. Howard Dean we have a mess here. Anyone know the age mix of N. Carolina and what % the college vote is state wide?

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

North Carolina has the triangle research park. Filled with those college-educated tech workers, and non-college educated tech workers who benefit from free trade, Obama has been doing just fine with. And wouldn't the rural residents in NC seem to have more in common with VA's rural residents than Ohio's?

Posted by: caribis | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

"seems like if N.Carolina is less African American than South Carolina it would be more favorable to Hillary,andy. "

Perhaps. Its probably more like VA than like SC. Whoops! That don't help her either.

Its probably worth pointing out that the race on May 6 will be different from the races on March 5 or Feb 4. There's a lot of time between now & then for the candidates to strategize about upcoming states. If you go over to The TRail, Balz has a piece on how PA is 'Ohio squared' arguing that all the demographics there are like Ohio, but moreso, which favors Sen Clinton. That may be true, but if you look at the demographics, there's been a lot of change from one state to the next. Its probably a wee bit premature to make predictions about who's best suited to win one state or another, particularly for those races 6 to 8 weeks away.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Have any of you in the news media seen this article from the Canadian press. Were is the news Media's sense of fair and accurate reporting. What happen to investigative reporting, it seems that the American media forget how to verify what they report. Were is the Media's sense fo fair play it seems that the whole NAFTA gate started with the Clinton camp, but you choose to report and what the Clintons told you guys to do. Please read the article below.

'NAFTAgate' began with remark from Harper's chief of staff
ALEXANDER PANETTA

The Canadian Press

March 5, 2008 at 8:53 PM EST

OTTAWA -- If the Prime Minister is seeking the first link in the chain of events that has rocked the U.S. presidential race, he need look no further than his chief of staff, Ian Brodie, The Canadian Press has learned.

A candid comment to journalists from CTV News by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's most senior political staffer during the hurly-burly of a budget lock-up provided the initial spark in what the American media are now calling NAFTAgate.

Mr. Harper announced Wednesday that he has asked an internal security team to begin finding the source of a document leak that he characterized as being "blatantly unfair" to Senator Barack Obama.

What is now a swirling Canada-U.S. controversy began on Feb. 26, when the usually circumspect Mr. Brodie was milling among droves of Canadian media on budget day in the stately old building that once housed Ottawa's train station.


Prime Minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff Ian Brodie watches from the back of the room during a photo op before the government caucus meeting on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Wednesday. (Tom Hanson/Canadian Press)

Videos

Obama's big in Japan

In Obama, Japan, they're nuts for White House hopeful Barack Obama

Related Articles
Recent

NAFTA leak could harm Canada, experts warn
Harper denies aide leaked Obama document
Will Obama's 'wink wink' on free trade help Clinton win precious votes in Ohio?
Harper meddling in U.S. primaries, Democrats say
Internet Links
Radwanski: The joy of low expectations
Results: Primary Tracker
In Depth: Race to the White House
Reporters were locked up there all day, examining the federal budget until they were allowed to leave once it was tabled in the House of Commons at 4 p.m.

Since the budget contained little in the way of headline-grabbing surprises, some were left with enough free time to gather around a large-screen TV to watch the latest hockey news on NHL trade deadline day.

Mr. Brodie wandered over to speak to Finance Department officials and chatted amiably with journalists -- who appreciated this rare moment of direct access to the top official in Mr. Harper's notoriously tight-lipped government.

The former university professor found himself in a room with CTV employees where he was quickly surrounded by a gaggle of reporters while other journalists were within earshot of other colleagues.

At the end of an extended conversation, Mr. Brodie was asked about remarks aimed by the Democratic candidates at Ohio's anti-NAFTA voters that carried serious economic implications for Canada.

Since 75 per cent of Canadian exports go to the U.S., Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's musings about reopening the North American free-trade pact had caused some concern.

Mr. Brodie downplayed those concerns.

"Quite a few people heard it," said one source in the room.

"He said someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

Government officials did not deny the conversation took place.

They said that Mr. Brodie sought to allay concerns about the impact of Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton's assertion that they would re-negotiate NAFTA if elected. But they did say that Mr. Brodie had no recollection of discussing any specific candidate -- either Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama.

CTV News President Robert Hurst said he would not discuss his journalists' sources.

But others said the content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp.

He went to air on Feb. 27 with a report that the Democratic front-runner had given advance notice to Canadian diplomats that he was about to engage in some anti-NAFTA rhetoric, but not to take it too seriously.

The report wound up on YouTube and caused an uproar in the U.S. race -- influencing the final days of the critical Ohio primary, with every indication it will also play a role in the upcoming Pennsylvania vote.

Mr. Obama has been pilloried by his opponents and faced the most aggressive questioning of his heretofore smooth-sailing campaign.

Clinton used the story to cast him as a double-talking hypocrite -- winking and nudging at Canadians while making contrary promises to American voters.

Republican nominee John McCain -- who proudly dubs himself a straight-talker -- has also seized on the incident to paint the Democratic front-runner as anything but.

When Mr. Obama's campaign and the Canadian government denied the allegation, a leaked document was obtained by The Associated Press written by a Canadian diplomat. It chronicled a conversation between Obama economic adviser Austan Goulsbee and diplomats at Canada's Chicago consulate.

The Obama aide has challenged the wording of the memo and says it characterized the conversation unfairly. A government official said that memo was initially e-mailed to over 120 government employees.

Mr. Harper has rebuffed opposition requests to call in the RCMP and also investigate the source of the original tip that led to the CTV report that triggered the diplomatic tempest. But a team of internal security agents has begun an investigation that will see dozens of bureaucrats and political staff questioned about their knowledge of the leak.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable. In fact, it may well be illegal," Mr. Harper told the House of Commons.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada -- and the way the leak was executed was blatantly unfair to Senator Obama and his campaign.

"Based on what (investigators) find, and based on legal advice, we will take any action that is necessary to get to the bottom of this matter."

NDP Leader Jack Layton is asking Mr. Harper to call on the Mounties to find out how the leaks occurred, and whether the Security of Information Act or any other privacy legislation was breached.

"There can be no doubt about it: the leak from within the Canadian government has had an impact now on the American elections," Mr. Layton said Wednesday.

"That is about the worst thing a country could do to another country -- to have an effect on their democratic process. . . If Mr. Harper isn't willing to call in the RCMP that confirms our suspicion that this was intentional."

Mr. Layton said Canadians would never accept Americans interfering in our elections, and we shouldn't tamper with theirs.

He said the incident is far more serious than another one last year in which the government called in the RCMP.

A temporary employee at Environment Canada was arrested in his office and marched out in handcuffs for allegedly leaking details of a government climate-change plan to the media.

Mr. Layton said that's small potatoes compared with inflicting political damage on one of the three contenders to lead the world's biggest superpower, and Canada's neighbour and largest trading partner.

"He's unwilling to treat it with the level of serious attention that he did when there was a junior bureaucrat at environment. . . He called in the RCMP on that one."


Posted by: james.alofoje | March 6, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

seems like if N.Carolina is less African American than South Carolina it would be more favorable to Hillary,andy. I think the important demographic is the age split since this campaign seems to be more split by whether you are 25 years old or 55 years old. Can someone fill us in on how influential a poulation base is the university as the Austin UT population didn't do it for B.O. here in Texas. Also seems like Baye has been mentioned in 3 election cycles as VP material. If he truly wants it this time, which I think improbable, he would go all out to carry Indiana for Hillary.

Posted by: leichtman | March 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

dsptog, perhaps. But IL also seems to fit Chris' description of IN & OH:
" The state is very white (86 percent, according to the 2000 census) and has a large rural and blue-collar vote -- three constituencies that have been very good for Clinton. "

In IN, I'm guessing the black population is concentrated in Gary - which is part of the Chicago metro area. The question is where Indianapolis fits in; is it more like Springfield, or Toledo/Akron/Cinci/Cleveland/Columbus?

Regarding the rurals, are they more like OH, or like IL, IA, WI, MN, KS & MO?

Or maybe I'm just being difficult.

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

Any chance you would write about the tax returns issue?

Here's an interesting story on Clinton talking tax returns back in 2000:

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/03/flashback_hrc_once_thought_tax.html

Posted by: dsbtog | March 6, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse


johnlumea - the fix-community voted on what to call the primary on March 4 - and the "ohio-texas two-step" won!

bsimon - perhaps the significance of Chicago sets IL apart from IN and OH (+the reasons Chris gave)

Posted by: dsbtog | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

One of the main reasons Indiana could be like Ohio is the ambush thrown at Obama by NAFTA-gate. Canada has denied everything, but the damage was done.... to Obama, which is exactly what the GOP wanted.

The "leaders" of the Dem party need to get together soon to straighten out the delegate/GOP interference mess or look completely unable to govern anything.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth_Hunter | March 6, 2008 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Chris, why do you argue IN looks more like OH than IL?

Posted by: bsimon | March 6, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Blarg,
NC and SC are different with SC having a larger black population and being generally more rural then NC. With Charlotte and the Raleigh Durham area being the main population centers in NC.

Also, not everyone in NC is a Tarheel CC. Some of us had the good sense to go to NC State. Go Wolfpack!!!

However, I think Obama should win NC handidly. The black vote is substantial enough to win it for Obama here. Also the universities in the triangle area will come out in full force to support Obama. I would expect a 10% win if the race even gets that far.

Posted by: AndyR3 | March 6, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Not to be unkind, but why do you persist in referring to "the Ohio-Texas Two-Step"?

Perhaps you are not aware that the pun that every other political writer uses -- is "the Texas Two-Step," a reference to Texas's hybrid "prima-caucus"?

Posted by: johnlumea | March 6, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

Is North Carolina really that demographically different from South Carolina? Considering that Obama won in a blowout in SC, and would still win even if all of the Edwards voters had gone for Clinton, it seems strange to call NC a tossup.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

Oh well, at least the Clintons can call in favors for pardons.

They can use their FALN contacts and hold Puerto Rico hostage, until they vote for the Clintons.


Posted by: vitana1900 | March 6, 2008 1:11 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company