Thisis almost unbelievable:

About $15 million - or more than half of the New York senator's January spending - went to a cadre of high-priced consultants. Though much of the cash went through the campaign media buyer for ad time, the considerable payments to outside consultants mark an increase in a pattern that has irked campaign insiders. From the beginning of the race through the end of last month, Clinton paid the consultants $33 million - nearly one-third of the $105 million spent by the campaign.

That provides some of the backstory behind Clinton's staff shake-up, her public appeals for campaign cash in the past two weeks and even her string of 10 straight losses to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama since Super Tuesday, Feb. 5.

She simply did not have the cash to compete in the post-Feb. 5 states, mostly because her campaign spending blueprint was built around two flawed premises: that no one would be able to match her fundraising and that the nomination would be decided on Super Tuesday.

Brilliant, love those overpriced idiot consultants like Mark Penn!

and, to this point, the people seem to be winning.

They've been pretty much off throughout this campaign.  Things they say will be close end up being blowouts (case in point Wisconsin).

they made it 11 straight for Obama
I am the virginia coresspondant for dems abroad.

Everyone should also check out a poll on New York in the general by SurveyUSA.  Obama is polling better than Clinton in New York.  I think this underscores the electability issue.  Obama wins by 21% while Clinton wins by 11% in New York.  Rasmussen also has polls out for Virginia and Iowa.  Obama again does better than her in both states. Here are the results: http://www.realclearpolitics.c...

Obama is gaining momentum like a runaway freight train...  Whatever Hillary tries backfires.  She is really grasping right now.

I expect Obama to heavily limit Hillary's gains out of Ohio, perhaps enough that he can make up for any losses with Wyoming and Mississippi right away.  That would be devestating to her campaign.

Of course, I'm assuming Obama wins more delegates in Texas than Hillary, but my assumption may not be that far off.  Because of where Obama is stronger, it's quite possible that if he only loses by a few percentage points (1-2), he may win the delegate count Nevada-style.

and since Texas is basically tied now, if things keep going the way they're going he'll win it by a significant margin.  In Ohio, if the trend keeps moving in Obama's direction, especially with the union endorsements, he'll win that state too.  If both of those happen, we'll have our nominee on March 4.  

Clinton has already decided that this is her last stand.  She may stay in the race if she wins Ohio and loses Texas, but everybody will know that the campaign is dead.

You're assuming Obama's momentum will keep up at this pace over two weeks.  I'm not so sure it will.  Eventually, the thrill of Wisconsin will die off.  Two weeks is a LONG time, and lots can change, including momentum.

All Obama needs is a tiny bit of momentum and he'll win Texas, a bit more than that and he'll win Ohio.  Anyway, what's more important is Obama's campaigning and advertising in Texas and Ohio, which are now really starting to kick in.  Plus, the union support...

If the election were next week, Hillary would probably win in Ohio and Texas. The two week break allow for more campaigning and organizing.

Do you find it troubling that the system is designed so that even though one candidate may win the popular vote in Texas, or Nevada, he or she may wind up with fewer delegates?

Doesn't this undercut the argument that the delegate count ought to be followed by Automatic delegates because it represents the choice of the voters?

I'm not suggesting anything untoward -- heck, if you do a better job understanding how the system works and use it to your advantage, that is fien by me -- I'm just asking about the substance behind the argument.

But reality is what it is.  My honest hope is that Obama wins outright, and nothing comes of it.  And maybe Nevada and Texas will rework their systems for 2012 or 2014.

In Texas, for instance, the statewide vote count is
meaningless:  instead, the voters are electing delegates
from each of the 32 state senatorial districts.  This
is more democratic than some "winner-take-all" model,
or even a "statewide proportional" model, because the
candidates have to appeal to the voters all across the
state.  Voters who live in an area which doesn't fit the
rest of the state still get reasonable, local
representation.

Combined with the caucused delegates, you get a result
which favors the candidate who actually engages the
base of the party more effectively, rather than one who
dominates in more-populous districts.

This is the same argument as the one for per-
congressional-district electoral college representation, rather than winner-take-all at the state level (except for the electors who represent the Senate seats).  I'd feel much more represented if Virginia adpoted such a model.

Don't get me wrong -- we are talking about political parties than can decide whatever rules they want to pick to pick their candidates.

Structuring primary rules so that one candidate can get more actual votes than another, yet still wind up with fewer delegates, may make sense for a party when it comes to figuring out how to choose the candidate the candidate with the most statewide appeal, but it isn't democratic.

I was merely addressing addressing the Obama argument that whoever has the most pledged delegates has demonstrated he/she is the choice of the voters. Maybe that will be true, but maybe it will not be true. So, asking automatic delegates to simply follow the pledged delegates because doing so represents the will of Democratic Party voters is not necessarily accurate.

Popular Vote
Obama 10,300,410
Clinton 9,375,213

Source: Real Clear Politics

which is why Clinton has to make up some votes in Texas and Ohio. Then, with Pennsylvania she may be able to draw even in the popular vote.

Early on, Obama set the conditions for S-Ds to fall in line -- a lead in pledged delegates and a lead in popular vote. (he also mentioned number of states as a data point, but that's just silly). If either or both of those are closely split, it puts the battle for S-Ds in a different light.

And just to be clear, Lowell, at this point I think BOTH Clinton and Obama have a responsibility to the parry and Democratic voters to avoid an ugly, back-room nomination battle. But the idea that if pledged delegates and total votes are relatively small when compared to the total (say, below .5%, for one exercise in arbitrary line drawing) that this translates into Hillary Clinton's obligation to step aside is misguided. At the end of the day, this path is founded on the assumption that, in the main, Clinton voters appear more likely to support Obama than Obama voters appear to support Clinton.

There may actually be some truth to this, because much of Obama's strength seems to come from Independents coming to the process, or at least the party, who would not be there but for Obama. Without him in the race, they don't show up. Clinton, on the other hand, seems to draw from the Democratic that will come out and vote for the Democratic candidate come Hell of high water. I suspect this is one reason why Obama is doing better in those polls you are so fond of posting the results of.

While I think better polling against McCain is a lousy reason for a citizen to vote for a particular candidate, it is an entirely appropriate consideration for a S-D, among others, in deciding whom to support, among other considerations. By the same token, perhaps this means that Obama's support is soft. We know Clinton voters will stick with her through a gaffe or two. Can these new, Independent Obama voters be counted on to do the same, or will they be fickle? More than one calculation is clearly possible.

I reject the idea, however, that it is Hillary Clinton, and only Hillary Clinton, who is responsible for party unity in a close election.

For the sake of the party, there is a part of me that hopes Texas and Ohio provide some clarity, even if it means my candidate loses.

move the polls.  Look what Barack has done elsewhere in a short week.

"An America as good as its promise." - Obama

Clinton: People of Cuba deserve Democracy.  Chance to change direction in Cuba.  If Cuba moves towards Democracy and freedom, the United States will welcome that.  Changes have to be real.  Would not meet with Raul Castro until there was evidence that change was happening.  

Obama: Would meet with new leader of Cuba.  Starting point is liberty of the Cuban people.  We now have an opportunity to change the relationship.  I would meet without preconditions, although there has to be preparation. On the agenda is human rights, release of political prisoners, freedom of the press.  We should talk to our friends and also to our enemies.  Loosen restrictions on remittances and travel to Cuba.  Wouldn't normalize relations until saw progress.  Our Cuba policy has been a failure.  We have to shift policy, normalization will happen in steps.  Direct contact - principle applies generally.  We should never fear to negotiate.

Clinton: Should be willing to have diplomacy with anyone. Move countries that are adversarial to us towards the world community.  The difference between us is when the president should offer a meeting without preconditions.  Shouldn't be offered in the beginning.  Should be part of a process.  Lots of preparatory work first.  Get rid of Bush policy.  Get back to very vigorous, bipartisan diplomacy.  The era of unilateralism, preemption and arrogance of the Bush Administration is over.

Obama: Preparation is absolutely critical. Either of us would step back from Bush unilateralism that has caused so much damage.  President needs to take a more active role in diplomacy. It's important for the president to take the extra step in order to undo damage of last 8 years.

Obama: You don't need an economist to tell American people that economy's in trouble.  People working harder for less, escalating costs, people struggling for a long time. Has to be a priority of next president.  Restore sense of fairness and balance, stop giving tax breaks to companies shipping jobs overseas.  End Bush tax cuts to the wealthy, give break to middle class Americans who need them.  Close tax loopholes and tax havens.  On trade deals, we need to have strong environmental, labor and safety standards.  Opportunity to create a "green economy."  Addiction to foreign oil.  Need to cap greenhouse gases.  Invest in solar, wind, biodiesel, put people back to work.  Sen. Clinton and I agree on many of these issues.  The question is "how do we get it done?"  Change will only come about if we form working coalition for change.  Priority to overcome dominance of special interests in Washington.  Sen. Clinton and I may have slight difference in that area.

Clinton: Agrees with a lot of what Obama just said.  This is the Democratic agenda.  Have tax code reflect needs of middle class.  The wealthy and well connected have had a president the last 7 years, it's time for a president who works for you.  Different approach to trade - strong environmental and labor standards.  Trade time out. Trade prosecutor.  Put much tougher standards in place.  Immediate steps on the foreclosure crisis.  Moratorium on home foreclosures for 90 days.  Freeze interest rates for 5 years.  "Clean, green jobs."  Invest in our infrastructure -- we need to rebuild America.  End George Bush's war on science. We've got to get back to being the innovation nation.

Clinton: I'd consider it.  This is not the America I know. It is a stark admission of failure by federal government.  We need comprehensive immigration reform.  Tougher, more secure borders. Crack down on employers who exploit undocumented workers.  More federal help for communities that absorb health care, law enforcement, other costs.  Work with neighbors to south.  Path to legalization - bring immigrants out of the shadows.  Pay fine, back taxes, learn English.  If they committed crime, they must be deported. Other than that, path to legalization.

Obama: Comprehensive immigration reform, worked on extensively.  Absolutely critical that we tone down the rhetoric on the immigration debate. Ugly undertones at Hispanic community.  Hate crimes have skyrocketed.  We are a nation of laws AND a nation of immigrants, we can reconcile those two.  Border security, crack down on employers that exploit undocumented workers.  Learn English, pay back taxes, pay significant fine, go to back of line.  Fix the LEGAL immigration system.  Right now, there's a backlog that means years of waiting for people.  High fees.  It's discriminatory against people of good character but simply don't have the money.  Improve relationship with Mexico, work to help produce jobs on that side of the border.  President Bush dropped the ball on this.

It's amazing how strained she sounds.

You can hear the stress in her voice.

Obama seems uncertain and unsure of his content to me, though he is always an effective presence and speaker.

Perhaps, more than anything, it shows that at this point these debates are not so much changing people's perceptions as they are hardening the perceptions we bring to them in the first place.

Clinton:  Both Sen. Obama and I voted for that.  Having been along border for last week or so...there is a smart way to protect our borders and there is a dumb way.  Univ. of Texas at Brownsville would have part of its campus cut off.  We need to review this.  There may be places where physical barrier is appropriate.  The Bush Administration has gone off the deep end and is coming up with a plan that is counterproductive. Listen to people along the border.  Smart fencing, technology, personnel, not necessarily a physical barrier.  

Obama: Sen. Clinton and I almost entirely agree.  Consult with local communities.  Bush Administration is not real good at listening.  May be areas where it makes sense to have some fencing.  Better approach is technology, surveillance.  Provide opportunity for 12 million undocumented workers who are here.  Fairness, justice.  Idea that we'll divert 12 million people is ridiculous.  Some order to the process.  Can't do any of this in isolation.  Comprehensive reform is so important.  Pass DREAM Act, allow children who have grown up as Americans the opportunity for higher education.  I don't want two classes of citizens.

Clinton: It's important for as many Americans as possible to learn another language. English needs to remain common, unifying language.  That brings our country together.  Don't make English the "official" language.  We have 170 languages in NY City alone.

Obama:  Important that everyone learns English.  Every student should be learning a second language.  This world is becoming more interdependent.  Part of America's continued leadership is our ability to communicate across borders.  One failure of No Child Left Behind is that it's so narrowly focused on standardized tests...foreign languages is one of the areas that's been neglected.

Clinton:  I have said that about President Bush.  Our next president needs to be a lot more cattle and less hat.  Sen. Obama and I have a lot in common.  We have run a very vigorous primary campaign, very positive and civil overall.  There are differences.  I do offer solutions, it's part of my life, working to get kids health care, working to expand legal services to the poor, working to make a difference.  Differences in our records, accomplishments.  One of Sen. Obama's rep's couldn't come up with any of his accomplishments.  Actions speak louder than words.

Obama: I think actions do speak louder than words. I have acted to provide health care to people who didn't have it, reform criminal justice system, open up our government and pass toughest ethics legislation since Watergate, create transparency in government, help wounded warriors at Walter Reed. They'd say I've engaged not just in talk but in action.  Sen. Clinton has a fine record.  There is a fundamental difference between us about how change comes about. Implication of Clinton is that people who are voting for me are somehow delusional ("let's get real").  Every major newspaper here in state of Texas has endorsed me.  Somehow they're all being duped.  I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly.  Stop endless bickering, actually get solutions, reduce power of special interests.  People understand that this isn't just a matter of putting forward policy positions. Have to inspire American people to go beyond divisions.  If not, we'll continue to see gridlock in Washington. I'm running for president to do something...

On Feb 5,I pointedout all this.

Mar 4, not  firewall, It will be a waterloo

Pitiful.

Just pitiful.

Hillary is persisting in this ridiculous argument about plagarism.

This is sad.

This is just a waste.  She's embarassing herself.

There are no solutions in these arguments.  There's only silly politics that America doesn't want.

HILLARY IS GETTING BOOED!

After tonight, America will be screaming for her to leave this race.

Why is she doing this?!?

Part of the past in other words.

I think the line that his speeches were "Change you can Xerox" was WAY below the belt, she's in attack mode.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett.

and the crowd didn't react well to it.

that seems no more below the belt than Obama's "Harry and Louise" style mailer from earlier in the season.

Her comment was low- it was an assault on his character, his mailer was a statement on her policy.
She's getting personal and it's out of line.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett.

Why is Obama in Bed with Karl Rove?

or his mild attacks at the JJ Dinner, what should have been a party-unifying event?

Trust me, I was working in IA during the IA caucus. JJs are always chances for candidates to differentiate themselves. IA's JJ is ALWAYS like VA's was this year. It's nothing new in states that are in play, which we can all agree that VA was.
The VA JJ has just become a "hot" event in recent years. I personally think it's pretty awesome to have an exciting JJ with not one, but TWO Presidential candidates.

I can remember JJs of years past where it was a miracle to stay awake during the random speaker that was scratched up at the last minute while gagging down rubber chicken and hoping to last until the real fun began in the hospitality suites.
As for "party unifying", I think that an event that sells out and has overflow, not to mention raising 750k for the DPVA is pretty dang unifying! Having the energy and passion for BOTH candidates is unifying.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett.

What about my other argument?

That article (Which Obama haters have been circulating) is nothing more that reaching...
It's irrelevant and much ado about nothing.

How does that compare with the zinger she let fly tonight? It was a personal attack. Period.

I will say that her closing comment was gracious and almost made up for the "xerox" low blow. I love that side of HRC and wish I had seen more of that this year.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett.

I meant:
I was working in IA during the IA caucus in 2000.

"We are the people our parents warned us about"-Jimmy Buffett.

Obama: Deval is a national co-chairman of my campaign.  Words are important, words matter, the implication that they don't diminishes importance of speaking to American people.  The notion that I plagiarized from my national co-chair who gave me the line and suggested I use it is silly.  This is where we start getting into silly season in politics, people want to know how we're going to create good jobs, make college affordable, etc.  Talking about not just hope and inspiration, but $4,000 tuition credit.  Been talking about relief for working families.  Talking about ending war in Iraq.  These are very specific, concrete, detailed proposals.  Sen. Clinton has a fine record -- so do I.  Don't spend time tearing each other down, spend time lifting the country up.

Clinton: If you're candidacy is going to be about words, they should be your own words.  Lifting whole passages from other people is not change you can believe in.  It raises questions if you look at YouTube.  I applaud you for being passionate, eloquent speaker.  Have to unite country for purpose around very specific goals.  You chose to put forward health care that will leave out millions of people.  You said moratorium on home foreclosures won't work.

Obama: Happy to debate issue areas.  We both want universal health care.  Clinton liked my plan when I was down 20 points in the polls.  95% of our plans are similar.  We've got a philosophical difference  - Clinton believes in forcing everyone to purchase health care. I believe people don't have health insurance because they can't afford it.  Sen. Clinton has called for a mandate.  I admire that Clinton tried to bring about health care reform in 1994, but she did it in the wrong way.  Sen. Clinton and the Administration went behind closed doors, didn't take ideas from even other Democrats.  I'm going to do things differently, open up process, involve American people.  Need to change politics in Washington or we'll be debating this same issue in 4 years.

all the references to John Edwards from Hillary?  Does that suggest something?  

n/t

Did Edwards endorse Hillary?  If not yet, Lowell, do you think he will?

and I don't think he will, based on what I'm hearing and also on commonsense.

You're so delusional, Lowell. ;)

:)

Clinton: I'm ready.  Let me get back to health care.  This is a substantive difference.  He has a mandate for parents to insure children. We have to require everyone to have health insurance.  If not, insurance industry will game system.  In earlier debate, John Edwards made great point - didn't make Social Security voluntary.

Obama: When Clinton says a mandate, it's a mandate on individuals to purchase it.  Massachusetts has a mandate right now, they've exempted 20%.  People are paying fines and still can't afford it, they're worse off than they were -- no health insurance and paying a fine.  Sen. Clinton says we'll go after people's wages.

Clinton:  This is the #1 issue people talk to me about.  This is personal for me.  I fundamentally disagree.  Sen. Obama's plan has a mandate on children and a fine.  We wouldn't have a social compact with Social Security and Medicare if we didn't force everyone to participate.

Obama: Reason a mandate for children can be effective, we have ability to make affordable health care for children right now.  Children don't have a choice.  The notion that I'm interested in leaving out 15 million people is simply not true.

to be commander in chief?

Clinton: I've represented our country in many countries.  Served on Senate Armed Services Committee.  Worked on homeland security.  This week's a good example -- Pakistan elections, Cuba situation, Kosovo declaring independence, embassy set on fire in Serbia. Question of presidential leadership.  Support independence of Kosovo.  Hold Serbian government responsible for protecting our embassy. I believe that I'm prepared and ready on Day #1.

Obama: I wouldn't be running if I didn't think I was prepared to be commander in chief.  #1 job will be to keep American people safe.  Will not hesitate to act against those who would do America harm.  Maintain strongest military on earth.  Train and equip soldiers properly. Use our military wisely.  On single most important foreign policy decision of this generation, I showed the judgment of a commander in chief, Sen. Clinton was wrong in her judgments on that.  That has serious consequences.  Diverted attention from Afghanistan.  On critical issues, who's going to show the judgment to lead.  Going into Iraq originally, I said it would distract us from Afghanistan, etc. I was right.  On Pakistan, I said very clearly that we put all our eggs in Musharraf's basket, that was a mistake. I was right about that.  I have shown judgement to lead.

Clinton:  Rationale of surge was to create space and time for Iraqi government  Iraqi government hasn't taken advantage of the surge.  Upon taking office, I will start withdrawing troops within 60 days. Iraqis no longer have a blank check as they've been given by President Bush.  They have to step up. Not in interests of America or Iraqis that we continue to be there.

Obama: It's indisputable that violence has decreased in Iraq.   That's a testament to our brave fighting men and women in Iraq.  This is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder.  Much easier for candidate who was against invading Iraq in the first place to debate John McCain on this issue.  We've been diverted from Afghanistan, but also from Latin America.  Iran is single biggest strategic beneficiary of our having invaded Iraq.  The incredible burden that has been placed on military families, veterans...still have homeless veterans, etc.   We're spending $12 billion a month in Iraq, means we can't invest in America's infrastructure.  McCain said he's willing to have troops in Iraq for 100 years.  McCain says he doesn't really understand the economy very well. That's clear from his embrace of George Bush's policies.

He's focusing on McCain wherever possible.

"McCain has said he doesn't really understand economics, and from his embrace of George Bush' policies, he's proven that he doesn't".

Gorgeous!

if I see another total BS ad by the coal association.  

Celebration is what comes to mind when I think coal.

Obama: I believe strongly in transparency.  Google for government.  Searchable database of where government dollars are spent.  Open up process so American people can make judgments about where their tax dollars are going.

Clinton: McCain supported wasteful tax cuts of Bush Administration and the Iraq war.  Bush inherited surplus, now it's gone.  We borrow money from the Chinese to buy oil from the Saudis, that's not a winning strategy.  Bush tax cuts on upper income will be allowed to expire.  I will take on Sen. McCain on fiscal irresponsibility of Republican Party.

Clinton: These are the rules...I think it will sort itself out.  We will have a nominee and a unified Democratic Party.

Obama: It is important that these primaries and caucuses count for something. The will of the voters, expressed in this long election process, should ultimately determine who our nominee will be.  Voters want government that is listening to them again. People feel shut out.   Knock down barriers that stand between American people and their dreams.  Sense of common purpose, higher purpose again.  American people want their government back and that's what I intend to provide them.

closing statement by Hillary.  

...overall, I think Obama won this debate.

and also such a loser for Clinton, I can't understand for thel life of me why she thinks it helps her.  Heck, the crowd BOOED her on that and the "people meter" plummeted.  Bad move and a ridiculous, concocted "issue."

That was a really bad move, and you saw that dawn on her as she said it.

(Also, if I just heard CNN right, she's about to get those plagiarism charges tossed right back at her.  Which is kind of hilarious. In both cases, however, it's just stupid.  This isn't Joe Biden level plagiarism.  It's culture and political speech.)

The question was about how she handles stressful situations. I think we can look at her face during this debate and see she does not handle stress well. She is not a happy fighter. Some people love to fight for the sake of the fight, the good fight, that is. She's not one. She wants to glide to victory.

Obama: I look at the trajectory of my life.  Raised by my mother and grandparents. There were rocky periods where I was off course.  Learning to take responsibility for my own actions. Working as a community organizer, civil rights attorney...cumulative experience gives me ability to bring people together.

Clinton: I've lived through some crises and challenging moments in my life. I'm grateful for support, prayers of countless Americans.  People ask me, "how do you do it?"  With all of the challenges I've had, they are nothing compared to Americans I see every day.  Brave young men and women wounded in war. The hits I've taken in life are nothing. I resolved at a young age that I've been blessed, called by faith and upbringing, that's what motivates me.  I am honored to be here with Barack Obama.  Whatever happens, we're going to be fine. I just hope we're going to be able to say the same thing about the American people, that's what this election should be about.

No fireworks or knockouts..in other words, no clear winner that I see.  Her closing remarks were quite effective.    

SMALL net positive for Hillary, but it shouldn't shift too much.  She might be able to get some of the woman vote back if she works that last part into her stump.  But that line where she got booed was harsh.  And if what Josh Marshall is saying is true, it could be bad news for her.

Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech writers need to use the final moment of this debate and extend it to 15 minutes for her to use after she loses on March 5th when she should suspend her campaign and unify behind Barack Obama for President.    

Primary/caucas, yes;  debates, no way.

Still, he's in I'm guessing.

Clinton, 92: "The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits the people of this state and this country have been taking for a long time."

Hillary Clinton, tonight: "You know, the hits I've taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country."

"the hits" and "are nothing compared"

Doesn't seem quite on scale with lifting multiple speech lines... but still.

This won't be an issue.  So she has the same theme as Bill in 1992.  What else is new.  She's running on being Bill's wife, for crying out loud.

Net positive for Hillary tonight.  But people have already seen the debates.  I think the people that already liked Obama will be further encouraged to go with Obama, and the people that already liked Clinton will be further encouraged to go with Clinton.  As for the leaners, is just depends on what happens in these next few weeks.

It was plagiarism by the Clinton Campaign's standards. Yes, of her husband's '92 campaign, but even more so of JOHN EDWARDS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

would adopt the rest of Edwards' populism and reject their own corporatism, I might support one of them.