Here’s a portion of an e-mail that Obama campaign manger David Plouffe sent me and countless others. Just thought that everybody needed to read this:

Dear Adam,

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it’s not the number of states you win, it’s “a contest for delegates.”

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it’s really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn’t count because they won’t be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri — general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain — the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as “latte-sipping” elitists.

And now that we’ve won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

We’re ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

The end of the portion I’ve included is especially interesting. The Clintons are talking up Pennsylvania like it’s the end all, but Indiana and North Carolina follow up a week or so later on the same day. Combined, the states have more delegates than Pennsylvania. Oregon is also an important contest, and one which Obama should win handily. I guess what I’m saying is this: Let’s not continue to allow the Clintons and the media to keep running their spin game on us, moving the goalposts and skewing the realities of this race in the process.

Since it is looking more and more like Barack Obama is the presumptive nominee (don’t worry — we won’t stop our fight against the Clintons until they are done), I wanted to toss the idea of a Barack Obama-Bill Richardson ticket out there. Bill Richardson has a girth of experience, and would help Obama foriegn policy-wise and with Latinos in Arizona, California, Florida, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Texas.

Yes, I understand that it is a Black-Hispanic pairing, but I think that they both transcend race. I also think that our country has moved past color when it comes to politics in most parts of the country. Both men were born here and are great Americans who have dedicated their lives to serving this country. I honestly think that they will not only be the right ticket for the country during these desperate times, but also for the rest of the world.

What does everyone else think about an Obama-Richardson ticket?

(hat tip: Barack and Bill)

For starters, Barack Obama’s laid-back demeanor tonight was a great sign. Remember, the Obama camp has a bigger team of pollsters than any other campaign. He didn’t feel the need to be overly aggressive tonight, and there was likely a very good reason for that. In the past 11 days Hillary Clinton’s national lead shrunk from 20 points to four, and California is down to three (that was before Edwards unexpectedly bowed out). Obama and his advisers are obviously very comfortable with the current trajectory of the campaign as Super Tuesday approaches.

As for the debate itself — the headlines will mostly be about Iraq.

This upcoming fall, John McCain and the Republicans will attempt to turn the general election into yet another conversation about Iraq, and not the economy. He’s a war hero, and that’s what he’s all about. He talks more about The Surge than the rest of the candidates talk about the hot buzzword of “change” combined. Because of McCain’s strengths, we need a Democratic candidate that has consistently opposed the Iraq war.

Let’s revisit the fall of ‘04. The Democratic party ran John Kerry with John Edwards — two senators who voted for the authorization of the Iraq war in 2002 — against a GOP war candidate. In the end, the GOP war candidate won. I still believe to this very day that if we had of ran Howard Dean as an anti-war candidate, that he would have defeated George W. Bush. There would have been no swiftboating of Dean and his strong, consistent stance of opposing the war.

We are facing the exact same situation right now, Democrats. I’m worried that collectively we might make the wrong move. Because of his strong record of opposing the Iraq war, Barack Obama gives the Dems the absolute best chance to take back the White House in 2009. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, will hear those same “flip-flop” chants that Kerry heard four years ago. Additionally, it’s not like she has a lot of potential non-Democratic votes sitting out there waiting for her. Let’s face it, most non-Dems despise the Clintons. When it comes to the general election, Hillary has a high floor, but a low ceiling. That’s been said by quite a few before me, but it’s true. Obama has a much better chance at taking down the Republican nominee, especially the war-mongering McCain.

This debate wasn’t just about electability, though.

Continue Reading »

This was truly the most impressive political performance I have ever witnessed, and the numbers back that up. We know that Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton and John Edwards combined, but he also beat the combined number of South Carolina votes for John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Simply incredible. From the Huffington Post:

In last week’s SC GOP primary, McCain and Huckabee (the top 2 finishers), got 147,283 and 132,440 votes respectively. That’s a total of 279,723. Obama just pulled down 291,000 by himself.

Obama is undoubtedly the most electable Democratic candidate. Hell, Obama personally received more votes than the ENTIRE 2004 South Carolina Democratic primary. While Hillary Clinton and her hubby will keep voters they’ve rubbed the wrong way — like me, for instance — at home, Obama clearly brings regular voters and new voters out in hoards. Even conservative CNN analyst Bill Bennett flat out said that Obama is “the stronger candidate” and other pundits alluded that many Republicans are rooting for HRC because they fear the movement rallying around Obama.

Thoughts like these are really starting to catch on, and they should — they make sense.

Beth Arnold of the Huffington Post — a self-proclaimed feminist and former Hillary Clinton believer — had some harsh words for HRC in her latest HP column:

I totally agree, and I believe if Hillary is the candidate, the Democrats will lose. The Republican candidate will thrash her, because of the hordes of Republicans, progressives, and Joes and Josephines Schmos who hate her for whatever reasons or have totally lost respect for her. Hillary Clinton cannot bring our country together. A vote for Hillary in the primaries will help a Republican get elected.

I am a feminist, and I was a Clinton believer. No more. I support the candidate who can transform our country at home and throughout the world. I support Obama now.

How many people must say this before the Democratic party wakes its ass up?

After seeing the favorable results of the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC national poll, I decided to dig a little deeper. You know, to see if I was putting a spin on things, or if Barack Obama was truly more electable than Hillary Clinton across the board.

The results: The consensus among all the national 2008 presidential election head-to-head polls is that Obama is the most electable candidate. Period.

You can head over to Real Clear Politics and see the results for yourself if you don’t believe me.

It makes complete sense to me. It has nothing to do with the core of the Democratic party, but instead with everyone else. Nationally, most Independents and Republicans are simply not going to vote for Hillary. Meanwhile, many Independents and even some Republicans will vote for Obama. It’s crazy, the GOP hates Hillary so much that they’ve almost turned pro-Obama. Doesn’t anybody else see what’s going on? I spied on Fox News a little bit tonight, and it was a half Hillary bashing session, half Obama lovefest. Unbelievable.

I’ve always said that Obama’s biggest test will be Hillary. Hillary, on the other hand, would be a dead woman walking the second she won the Democratic nomination. The Clintons are a polarizing force. Hell, they’re even polarizing the Democartic party as we speak. What will they do to the country?

Continue Reading »

Look at the brand new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll results for yourself — Barack Obama is stronger than Hillary Clinton against the viable Republican candidates. He beats all four, and his margins are better for three of the four. Hillary fares better against only Mitt Romney, and by a mere three points. She actually loses to John McCain, while Obama is currently tied with the senator from AZ…

Judging from that info, a McCain or Mike Huckabee nomination would be pretty damn scary if HRC won the Democratic ticket.

Bill Clinton isn’t as sly as he thinks he is.

(By the way, how could someone who’s been linked to as many affairs as he’s been — Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Wiley, Monica Lewinsky and Paula Jones, at least — ever really think they’re sly? I’m just asking.)

It isn’t just Dick Morris, a former Clinton strategist, that sees what Bill’s doing. We all see it. Iowa threatened his precious “Clinton Restoration” dream down to its very core, scared the Lewinsky out of him. That’s why he came out guns a’ blazing as Hillary’s hitman during the days leading up to the New Hampshire primary, and has played that same role ever since.

The Clinton camp thinks this strategy it’s working, but it’s not. They fooled us twice already, but this time it isn’t going to work. You see, Slick Willy is serving as a similar diversion to the one that his wife provided him in 1992. Bill thinks that if all of Barack Obama’s focus is on him that not only will it not be on Obama’s inspirational message, but the heat will also be off of Hill. I’ll give him some credit — it worked for a little while.

But Bill’s political thug tactics aren’t working any more.

Why not? There are several reasons.

Continue Reading »