After a New York Minute

The debacle over Hillary Clinton's Senate seat mercifully ended, but not without significant political fallout. It was an unfortunate affair for pretty much everyone involved, particularly Governor David Paterson, who has been roundly criticized (and outright mocked) for his handling of the situation.

Caroline Kennedy's interest in the assignment was clearly problematic for Paterson. An accidental governor, he was sure to face a tough reelection battle in 2010 and probably a primary challenge as well. The Senate seat provided Paterson a way to clear a Democratic rival with designs on his job-- I'm thinking specifically of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of popular former Governor Mario, but I'm sure there are others-- but Kennedy's hat in the ring threatened that chance.

My expectation was for Paterson to wait for Kennedy to lose momentum and hopefully fall out of favor with the electorate, which never knew her as a pol. Things appeared to be headed that way as she struggled in initial interviews, and polls said voters preferred the attorney general for the job.

But then things took an ugly and surprising turn.

Just as Hillary Clinton was set to be confirmed as Secretary of State, whispers circulated that Kennedy would withdraw her name for personal reasons. Paterson could have left it at that. Instead, sources close to the governor trashed Kennedy, saying the Paterson would not have nominated her anyway because of nanny and/or tax and/or marriage problems. Though he denied knowing who was behind the leaks, Paterson was derided by everyone from Maureen Dowd to David Letterman, and the New York Post's Fred Dicker called him a liar in a detailed report.

Perhaps stranger still, Paterson did not nominate Cuomo, but chose Kristin Gillibrand instead. A one term Congresswoman with (according to Dowd) a less than stellar reputation in the House, Gillibrand has been a friend to the NRA, and stood with former Senate Republican Al D'Amato at her annoucement. However, She fills two of Paterson's main public criteria: She's a woman and from upstate. Presumably, this is Paterson's attempt to build support in the region and appeal to female voters.

But she fails on another key component. As an unfamiliar name, Sen. Gillibrand will have difficulty raising the money or generating the enthusiasm necessary for what will be at least three elections in two years: a primary battle before a special election in 2010, the election itself and the race when the seat's actual term expires in 2012.

She also leaves the 20th district ripe for a Republican pick- off in 2010.

I understand the desire for upstate influence, but about 63% of New Yorkers live in the city, on Long Island or in Westchester county. Picking a woman to fill the seat is also commendable, but Gillibrand's gender is not enough to ensure female support, and any gains may be outweighed by the fallout from liberals and those upset over the Kennedy smears.

Gillibrand deserves a fair shot as senator, and upstaters deserve a voice. But Paterson's decision remains curious. If he wanted to avoid naming Cuomo, who had a messy divorce from Kennedy's cousin Kerry in 2003, out of respect for the Kennedy clan, why the disparaging leaks? If he wanted to use the pick as a political opportunity why not a) pick Cuomo, b) pick Kennedy (with her Obama and Bloomberg ties, deep pockets and wealthy friends) or c) pick a place- holder closely allied with Hillary like my rep. Nita Lowey (although she denied interest in the job).

Whatever the answers, interesting questions abound. And the next couple of years in New York politics should be unpredictable.

Let's look at the winners and losers:

The losers are obvious.

• Caroline Kennedy. She struggled through a three month political career.
• New Yorkers. We lost out on a senator with unparalleled access to the president at a tumultuous time.
• David Paterson. The year he has to live this down before he'll have to mount a primary campaign may not be enough, and he looks more vulnerable than ever.

The winners are less clear.

• The Clintons. They can't be too upset that one of Obama's biggest primary backers has been embarrassed, and won't get Hillary's old job.
• Chuck Schumer. Who is now, without a doubt, the top dog in New York politics, especially after Mayor Bloomberg and his camp stuck their necks out for Caroline.
• Andrew Cuomo. He'd probably prefer to be governor, and, through a series of bizarre events going back to Eliot Spitzer, has a golden opportunity.
  

He Keeps It Cool, She Likes It Hot

Mafia Wisdom

On Thanksgiving, I finally checked off a big empty slot on my Man Card by watching the Godfather II. (I know... I know...)

One of the most famous lines from that film is particularly appropriate to today's political news, as Democrats debate the merits of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and wonder why she was tapped for the spot.

If you've seen the movie, you probably already know where I'm headed: Michael talks with Frankie Pentangeli about staying friendly with Hyman Roth, the man who tried to have him killed.

My father taught me many things here -- he taught me in this room... He taught me -- keep your friends close but your enemies closer.

Now, this isn't to suggest that there's malice between the President- elect and his future Secretary of State, I don't mean to apply the thought in that context.

I think there's a different kind of wisdom here, and there are many reasons why picking Hillary Clinton is ultimately an excellent decision.

There is the typical reasoning for the choice: President Obama will have to devote most of his time and energy to the economy, but he doesn't want to snub foreign leaders as he rebuilds our alliances and reputation. A visit from Secretary Clinton will be a great substitute for Air Force One, and she'll garner respect and media attention wherever she goes. Her celebrity will go a long way on the international scene.

However, I suspect that Hillary would have been picked even if the economy was in better shape.

The reason combines the Godfather's wisdom with the lessons of Dorris Kearns Goodwin's Team of Rivals, a book Obama cited as one of his favorites during the campaign. I read it a while back (it only took me an entire summer to get through). It details the way Abraham Lincoln filled his cabinet with the men who ran against him in a bitter battle for the Republican nomination.

These men (William Seward, Salmon Chase, et. al) viewed Lincoln as too green and backwoods to lead at such a calamitous time. But, as he'd done all his life, Lincoln eventually won them over and brought them into his fold.

This is shrewd for (at least) two reasons:

First, your opponent is often the most able person for the job. The president gets the heat and the credit, so he has the ultimate incentive to put the absolute best people around him. Putting personal greivances or even mistrust ahead of what would yield the best outcome is unwise, and would seem totally out of character for Obama.

The second is more politically practical. Obama's former rival now has a major stake in his administration. The more people tied to its outcome, the better the administration's chance for success. Think of a snowball rolling down a hill, the more people it picks up the more powerful it becomes.

Hillary and her husband are still a major force, so putting them on the team gets everyone in the party on the same page (they're a huge chunk of snow). And now, when there's a setback, the press can't run to Hillary's office for a dig on the president.

Christopher Hitchens and other out-spoken Hillary bashers complain that the choice undercuts Obama's message of change. In reality, it's just the opposite. It is difficult to remember a more precarious situation for a president- elect than to come to Washington as president after barely securing his own party's nomination, and look through the rolls of the town's top talent and see names clearly alligned with his opponent.

The old politics approach would purge DC of everything Clinton. Instead, the president- elect chooses to embrace his party's best (Rahm Emanuel, Ron Klain and Sen. Clinton, herself) because they are just that. It's a decision full of self- confidence and understanding of what it will take to reshape the country.

As Michael Corleone indicated, keeping your enemies close will allow you to eliminate them. But that doesn't necessitate a bullet, as Lincoln showed they may simply be eliminated as enemies through common interest and a shared destiny.

Clinton/ Palin

Probably the best political sketch in nearly ten years.

Getting Nervous

In the interest of full disclosure, I did not watch all of last night's convention coverage. With the Mets in the fight of their lives, I had to flip back and forth. But I doubt that made any difference on my opinion, and I've since gone back and read or watched the speeches...

I am officially worried.

This entire summer, I predicted a blow-out. I guaranteed Barack Obama would shatter 300 electoral votes, sweep an impressive majority into Congress, and wield the "political capital" President Bush so pompously claimed in 2004.

But now, I'm worried about my party's November chances.

This week, Democrats haven't driven the final nail into the Bush Administration's coffin, or fortified their position as the stronger party for the next generation. They've only taken us half way.

All week in Denver, primetime speakers have stated the obvious: We cannot afford four more years of Bush policies. The American dream now seems out of reach. Barack Obama can change the direction of the country.

So while the speeches were good, and each major speaker accomplished the goal handed down by the 24- hour news media, there was very little overall connection to the overarching theme of why our country is so desperate for change. Instead they answered GOP talking points: what is Barack's story? does Michelle love her country? will Dems unite?

The speakers offered up worn phrases mixed with the most tired of political devices-- the encounter story. You know what I'm talking about:

"Once I met a woman with one leg, no house and the Clap..."

"... that's when I met Joe, who works 8 jobs, sleeps a half hour a month, and makes just $12k/ year..."

"An old Army vet told me the only thing he loves more than the American flag is apple pie, and the only thing he loves more than apple pie is a bald eagle carrying the American flag in his talons, and the only thing he loves more than that is if the eagle served him a heaping slice of apple pie in the Grand Canyon..."

(Is it just me, or is that stuff is entirely ineffective? I find it forced and disingenuous. And even if those encounters really happened, Democrats need to speak to the middle class, not the guy with no legs and VD.)

What was entirely lacking was meat to back up the words. When President Clinton was in office, his speeches were littered with statistics that illustrated our country's progress. Wow, you'd think, we're doing really well. He did some of that last night, but in all there was not nearly enough.

The only hard facts or numbers that stick out from this week is the price of gas, which we already knew, and may not even be a political winner thanks to confusion over the (lack of) benefits to drilling.

Of the four major speakers (Michelle Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden), President Clinton had the best appeal to average folks:

"In this decade, American workers have consistently given us rising productivity. That means, year after year, they work harder and produce more.

Now, what did they get in return? Declining wages, less than one-fourth as many new jobs as in the previous eight years, smaller health care and pension benefits, rising poverty, and the biggest increase in income inequality since the 1920s...

They took us from record surpluses to an exploding debt; from over 22 million new jobs to just 5 million; from increasing working families' incomes to nearly $7,500 a year to a decline of more than $2,000 a year; from almost 8 million Americans lifted out of poverty to more than 5.5 million driven into poverty; and millions more losing their health insurance.

Now, in spite of all this evidence, their candidate is actually promising more of the same."

That is what we needed, but we didn't get enough. In making their closing argument, Democrats asked for the verdict without presenting the evidence.

In the minds of too many Americans, that comes across as America- bashing. Democrats have the charge of any party out of power, speak to the virtue of the country and enrage the electorate that its been so badly mismanaged. It's an awkward task made easier because this administration's mismanagement has been so blatant. But Dems didn't remind the public why we're so passionate this time around. The focus was on shorting out Republican attacks instead of building our case against the other side.

Two oil men took over the government and ran up record oil profits. Along the way they tanked the economy, re-wrote the Constitution and put unqualified friends in positions of public trust. Millions have suffered because of their incompetence-- that is this president's legacy. But Democrats shied away from addressing it explicitly, favoring general language instead.

It could just be the lawyer in me, or the Carville- influence. Maybe I'm just more into the pointed style. But as I watched the speeches, I had to remind myself why I don't like this president or the Republican party; why I believe the country is on the wrong track. Those are memories and connections I shouldn't have to make, the Democrats should be walking voters slowly down memory lane of the last eight years.

Maybe Obama pulls it off tonight. Maybe it won't even matter. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. Maybe, but I'm officially worried.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention John Kerry's solid speech on John McCain and international relations:

For Obama, Time to get Tough is Now

To the surprise of many, Zogby's monthly presidential poll has John McCain +5 points, a 12 point swing since just last month.

The nerves of many Democrats are frayed because Sen. Barack Obama has stumbled even though the public's general view of Democrats remains more positive than it is of Republicans. There are many explanations for Obama's false start:

First, race probably plays a role.

Second, Obama took a long vacation, anticipating a lull in campaign coverage and interest during the Olympics. This was probably a strategic decision to prevent peaking too early, and to minimize the public fatigue before the hard campaigning of the fall.

But another contributing factor to his under-performance is Obama's reticence to attack his opponent. McCain's consistently hard hits have been met with tepid reactions. Too many of Obama's attacks are mere responses, allowing the McCain camp to control the narrative of the campaign and making it a referendum on Obama, rather than about the struggles of the last eight years. For example, when McCain hit Obama as a "celebrity," Obama debuted an ad pointing out that McCain is also a celebrity.

Unless Obama can get back in front of the curve and control the story, he's in real danger of losing under the most favorable conditions Democrats have seen since FDR.

For instance, McCain inaccurately stated multiple times that Iran trained al Qaeda insurgents in Iraq. Not only untrue, but demonstrative of a failure to understand a basic premise of Middle East relations-- the deep differences between factions of the Muslim faith-- something George W. Bush didn't understand until too late.

If Obama had made those mistakes, a barrage of "Is he ready to lead?" ads would have hit the air that week. Because it was McCain, those gaffes have been all but forgotten.

Up to this point, Obama's campaign can be readily contrasted with how Sen. Clinton would have run, which may cost him confidence in his own party. She'd have hit back, and hard.

It's no wonder that Obama hasn't gotten too dirty yet, staying above the fray was a precept of his campaign and a key to his success. But the time to engage is here. In choosing a VP, Obama would be wise to pick a pit bull, someone (like Joe Biden) who will criticize Republican policies openly, honestly and without any reservation.

Obama was probably smart to wait this long, but now he should make a move, and quickly, because his campaign may depend on it.

Hillary Endorses

Almost tough to watch... but she gave him a full throated endorsement.



Any other sports fans out there feel like the Democratic primary was the equivalent of some recent ALCS or Western Conference Finals (before this year)? I mean it seems like the main event is a forgone conclusion. Like John McCain spent his season playing against some very inferior competition.

Huff-Po's Edsall: Clinton's Undoing

Forty years ago, the Democratic party was split between Hubert Humphrey and Bobby Kennedy, as they tried to find a presidential challenger to Richard Nixon. The parallels between 1968 and 2008 are well- documented and genuine. However, the '68 nominating contest was unlike 2008's in a most important respect. Back then, will of the Democratic masses mattered less in choosing a candidate than did the judgment and alliances of a few well-positioned elites within the party, who presided over smoke- filled rooms and convention floor fights before tabbing a winner.

One such man was Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley, who was fiercly anti- Kennedy, and hosted the 1968 Democratic National Convention. Of course, Kennedy never made it to that convention, but many of his followers did, protesting the war, and the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations outside until Daley used harsh, violent means to suppress them.

It was under that shadow that the McGovern Commission was born, charged to redo the nominating process, and put the power in the people's hands. That commission created the caucus process we know today. The organizers knew not as many people would participate in a caucus as pull a lever in a primary, but they wanted to return to a time of more active democracy. It was about the kind of participation.

One of the organizers of the '72 commission was a young man named Harold Ickes, who fought for the changes as a way to enfranchise blacks, Hispanics, women and regular folks in general. Ickes would go on to become a party bigwig and run Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign. The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall has a great article on how Obama would come to benefit immensely from these changes, and how Clinton would be undone by, as much as anything, a lack of appreciation for the system Ickes helped devise so long ago.

Edsall points out some crazy numbers that make one question the wisdom the current system, which is split between caucuses and primaries and always apportions votes according to percentage received:

"As of June 2, according to RealClearPolitics, Obama had a 157 delegate vote lead over Clinton, 2072 to 1915.

In the 14 states that picked some or all of their delegates through caucus systems this year, Obama won 400 delegates to Clinton's 193, a 207 delegate advantage that more than accounts for his overall delegate lead.

An analysis (pdf) published on TalkLeft found that total Democratic voter participation in the caucus states amounted to 1.1 million people, compared to the 32.4 million voters in Democratic primaries, a ratio of 30 to one. Caucus participants made up 3.2 percent of the total of 33.5 million primary voters and caucus goers combined.

In contrast to the relatively close results in most primary states, Obama won many of the caucus states by huge margins, often substantially exceeding 60 percent. As a consequence, he piled up large numbers of delegates in the relatively low turnout contests.

The TalkLeft analysis noted that Clinton won 11 more delegates than Obama in the New Jersey primary, which she won by 112,128 votes, while Obama won 12 more delegates than Clinton in the Idaho caucuses which he won by 13,225 votes. Similarly, Clinton netted 12 delegates by winning the Pennsylvania primary by 214,115 votes, while Obama came out ahead by 14 delegates by winning the Kansas caucuses by 17,710 votes."

HIllary's Montana Ad

Hillary Clinton is still running for president, here's her first TV ad for the June 3 Montana primary.

Quote of the Day 5/14

The bottom line is this: the White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning in the swing states... The question is: why do so many people keep voting? Why did 64% of Democrats say in a recent poll say they wanted this race to continue?

- Sen. Hillary Clinton after her huge 67- 26% victory in West Virginia.

Senator Clinton won the primary in Ohio, which decided the 2004 election, Florida (though Sen. Obama didn't campaign there), which decided 2000, and now West Virginia, which no Democrat has won the White House without since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

The White House is indeed won in the swing states, that's what makes them swing states. The question that underlies Sen. Clinton's bottom line is: what are this year's swing states?

If the Democrats need West Virginia this time around, Sen. McCain can probably start measuring the Oval Office drapes now.

But Obama has beaten Clinton in Republican- leaning states that he could win November: Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico and Missouri among others. If Obama won a couple of these, West Virginia and other more traditional swing states might not matter.

Hill's 3 Key Points

SNL's Amy Poehler, as Hillary Clinton, outlined the New York Senator's three main selling points to super-delegates.

On Clinton's Outcome

EJ Dionne wrote an interesting article on the extremes of Hillary Clinton's ultimately disappointing campaign for president. Here are a couple of positives he sees from her (and her supporters') POV:

1) Hillary is finally her own woman: She started the race unable to escape her husband's considerable shadow, yet throughout the campaign she was far better off in the spotlight than when he took the lead. Bill seemed to be in the news for all the wrong reasons, but Hillary was a legitimate force with talent beyond President Clinton's reach.

2) She did her party a favor: Newsflash-- Democrats struggle with white working class men. Al Gore and John Kerry could never connect with them, and it cost both men the White House. For all Barack Obama's lofty rhetoric, big crowds and bulging war-chest, he, too, was vulnerable on issues that mattered to these voters. He may have been sliding down the Gore/ Kerry path to confounding Election Night loss. But Hillary's campaign forced him off the stage and into the trenches, connecting with the country's middle class backbone.

As Dionne put it:

Clinton, widely seen as the champion of older, well-educated feminist women, could be remembered as the politician who brought the party back to its working-class roots.

For all she's accomplished, and surely these two matters are mere snippets, Clinton has lost a lot as well. She has enormous debt-- some $20 million. Also, her and her husband's reputation in the Black American community, once sterling, will probably never fully recover.

For all the gains and losses, Dionne hopes that Clinton and her supporters emerge from their defeat with a sense of possibility. They failed in a major respect, but Sen. Clinton is more independent, and in many ways stronger, than she ever would have been had she coasted to her "inevitable" mid- winter nomination. Also, one of her allies, like Evan Byah, will likely wind up on Obama's ticket.

Senator Clinton will be a force, to the extent she wants. Dionne hopes she accepts this, and tackles the possibilities of a new role with the same tenacity she pursued the elusive Democratic nomination.

All Even

The New York Times, CBS and ABC are all reporting that Barack Obama has caught, and maybe even passed, Hillary Clinton in super-delegate support. These party officials had been Clinton's last refuge in her race for the Democratic nomination.

ABC actually has Obama with a one- delegate lead. Meanwhile, NBC News still puts Clinton on top, albeit by an ever shrinking margin- 273.5 to 267. I tend to trust NBC News, because I like Chuck Todd so much.

Whatever the case, it's only a matter of time now before Obama is his party's nominee for president.

Rahm Emanuel, the powerful Congressman from Illinois called Sen. Obama the "presumptive nominee." He leads in states won, votes cast and money raised, so this shift in super-delegates was really only a matter of time.

Obama puts it away

Last night, Hillary won the great state of Indiana. Maybe it was Monday's stop at the Dairy Queen down the corner from my house that put her over the top. But it was only by two points, 51- 49. And she's skipping the morning talk shows.

So basically, after his 14- point victory in North Carolina, the Democrats have their nominee. It's no longer a question of who, it's a matter of when.

Below is Obama's NC victory speech. Complete with his newly developed southern accent!

Carville Rages On: Quote of the Day 5/4

When I worked for James Carville a couple of years back, I was always amazed at his ability to find the perfect turn-of-phrase to fit any situation. They were sometimes crude, usually funny, and always insightful. That ability is on full display in a recent Newsweek article.

On Barack Obama's string of Superdelegate endorsements, Carville quipped,

"A superdelegate commitment and a four bucks will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz Carlton."

He also took note of Obama's increasing vulnerability and perceived lack of toughness,

"Everything that's happened to him is not because of her. She hasn't laid much of a glove on him other than just being there."

Sen. Clinton, he argued is easily the tougher of the two candidates,

"If she gave him one of her cojones, they'd both have two."

How great is that?

Pic of the Day 4/ 28: In the Year 2012

Digital artists at Pop Photo have altered images of the remaining presidential candidates to show how they'll probably look in four years.



The stress of the presidency certainly ages you. Just look at George W. Bush and imagine if he hadn't spent half his time on vacation.

Times Op- Ed Slams Hill for Ad

The New York Times ran an Op-Ed piece this morning slamming Hillary Clinton's campaign tactics before her Pennsylvania primary victory. The Drudge Report wondered if it was a withdrawal of the Times' earlier endorsement.

The column took issue with the TV ad that "featured" Osama bin Laden, and said it was part of a pattern to divisive tactics, and Clinton "took the low road to victory." The sentiment echoed stances by the Huffington Post and Keith Olbermann, among others. It's a sentiment I disagreed with here.

The Times wrote:

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

In the 2004 campaign, Rove's tactics related fears of terrorism and to the Iraq War. He used scary images to drive up support for Iraq and the incumbent president who started that war, of whom voters otherwise didn't approve or trust.

Senators Obama and Clinton have nearly identical positions on Iraq and Afghanistan, so if an image of bin Laden drives voters Clinton, it has less to do with them being scared into something against their better judgment, but affirms that voters see her as better equipped to deal with threats in a dangerous world.

Furthermore, bin Laden should not be off limits. We want a president that can catch him and deal with his threat; just as we wanted a president to see us through a devastating economic crisis, or nuclear missiles off our shore, or an Evil Empire-- crises this column suggests should be off limits.

Gotcha, Hill- Dog! Huff-Po Let Down

It's no secret that most liberal websites and blogs favor Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. Sites like Huffington Post, Daily Kos and Move On all have well documented Obama- biases. In most cases that's fine. Having an opinion is OK, especially when the site is opinion- based, like Move- On and Kos (and SAM Online, for that matter). Things get a little more annoying when the site has more of a "reporter" function, like Huff- Po, and dumps daily news links under often- misleading headlines.

As a fan of The Huffington Post, I am continually disappointed when the site engages in the kind of "gotcha- politics" that it often ridicules. In the YouTube era, every misstep by a public figure is recorded and released, and those who pounce first and loudest are usually well rewarded.

This leads to non- issues and non- missteps being treated as more. It seems that Fox News, talk radio and other outlets engaging in such practices think consumers won't know (or care to know) the difference.

On more than one occasion, the Huffington Post has unfortunately joined that rank. At one point today, the site's headline (in big red letters) read: "Hillary Plays the Bin- Laden Card," along with the above image, referring to the ad posted below. The ad plays on Hillary's experience and talks about the unforeseen and serious nature of the presidency. Images from the past century's most dire moments are shown, including about two seconds of Osama bin- Laden walking through the mountains. Huff-Po's sub- headline read: "Needs Pennsylvania Landslide to Catch Obama."

The implication being that Hillary is so desperate that her ad showed bin- Laden in an underhanded attempt to scare voters into voting for her.

Here's a quick run- down of how many levels this is ridiculous on:

1) It is perfectly acceptable to show an image of bin Laden in an ad on challenges that face a president. This was a challenge that was unmet by the current president, and Democrats need this issue to win in November.

Dems need to stop being so scared of anything bin Laden, it's like they consider the issue an automatic bump for Republicans. Capturing him and his operatives should be a key goal of any administration.

2) If an image of US public enemy #1 sends voters to camp Clinton en masse, then perhaps she deserves to win the state. Again, bin Laden is an important issue, and if voters identify Clinton as better ready to meet this challenge, then she deserves that support.

3) Any attempt by the Clinton camp to manipulate the public is matched and exceeded by Huffington Post. Huff- Po wants to catch Clinton in an underhanded tactic when none is present, and spin it as part of the "She'll do anything to win" "She's unethical and manipulative" narrative.

I hate ragging on my peeps, like Huff- Po, but this headline and the Post's constant "gotcha" online- journalism is tough to take. I guess I am harder on them because I expect more.

PA Preview: Bowlers and Gun- Owners

NBC News provides an first glance at what to expect during tomorrow's Democratic Pennsylvania Primary:

A new MSNBC/McClatchy/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette poll suggests things are staying fairly competitive in Pennsylvania. This survey of 625 likely Dem primary voters was conducted Thursday and Friday, and it shows Clinton leading Obama by five points, 48%-43%. So what happens on Tuesday? Looking inside the poll's demographics, the highest undecided totals are in the more rural parts of the state -- and that's not good news for Obama. In the so-called "T" region of the state (almost everything between Philly and Pittsburgh), Clinton leads 51%-37% with 11% undecided; this is one of the few demographic groups sporting double-digit undecided. Two other interesting crosstabs with high undecideds also signal the potential that the undecided vote will break for Clinton. Among bowlers (24% of the electorate) and gun owners (38% of the electorate), Clinton leads big among these cultural conservatives: She's up 54%-33% among bowlers and 53%-28% among gun owners. So while the poll shows Clinton with a narrow -- and arguably narrowing -- lead, the clues inside the numbers indicate this is her race to lose and that her lead could expand.

*** Will it be five points or more? Should tomorrow’s primary end up as close as this poll suggests (i.e., five points or less), then this means many of these undecided potential Clinton voters decided to stay home. If they come to the polls, she could see her lead climb to more than five points. And this seems to be why Obama has gone negative in the past couple of days: to keep these undecideds away. He might have also sharpened his tone a bit to beat back the growing post-debate perception that he was looking weak. After all, the undecided voter in Pennsylvania looks to be the type of voter that wants to see a strong walkin' and talkin' candidate. So here’s the game on Tuesday -- it’s not if Clinton will win, but how big will her victory be. She'd like to net more than 200,000 in the popular vote, which she would only get with both a large turnout (approximately 2 million total) and a 10-point-plus victory.

Obama Responds

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton's campaign unveiled an ad taking Obama to task for his "God and guns" comment. Today, Obama is back with a response.