Getting Mrs. Clinton

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).

AP

But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.

Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.

Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.

It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.

I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.

The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.

* * *

You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.

On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."

Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.

What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)

She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.

* * *

What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."

Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."

Original here

Senator urges Clinton to drop out

Email Picture

Ken Cedeno / Bloomberg News

Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, gestures prior to a committee hearing in Washington, D.C., Jan. 30, 2008.

Vermont's Leahy gives voice to a growing concern among Democrats that a protracted nomination fight will hurt the party in November.

By Michael Finnegan and Mark Z. Barabak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
March 29, 2008

In a sign of growing anxiety over the Democrats' bitter nominating fight, a senior senator urged Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday to abandon her presidential bid and cede the race to rival Barack Obama. Clinton rejected the notion.

The recommendation from Sen. Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont that Clinton drop out came as Obama picked up support from another senator, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, the state holding the next primary, on April 22.

Separately, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean signaled his concern over the tenor of the race by urging Obama and Clinton to scale back their rhetorical assaults, saying they risk undermining the effort to beat Republican John McCain in November.

Dean also urged undecided superdelegates -- the party and elected officials who are likely to decide the nomination -- to pick a candidate by July 1 to avoid an irreparable rift at the party's August convention.

"Let the media and the Republicans and the talking heads on cable television attack and carry on, fulminate at the mouth," Dean told the Associated Press. "The supporters should keep their mouths shut about this stuff on both sides because that is harmful to the potential victory of a Democrat."

New York Sen. Clinton faces long odds in overcoming Obama's lead in the race for elected delegates and trails the Illinois senator in the popular vote.

But polls show her comfortably ahead in Pennsylvania, and Clinton has suggested a willingness to fight on to August. "A spirited contest is good for the Democratic Party and will strengthen our eventual nominee," Clinton said while campaigning Friday in Indiana, which votes May 6.

In speaking out on behalf of Obama, Leahy -- and to a lesser extent Sen. Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut -- gave voice to a sentiment that many Democrats have been whispering with increased urgency over the last several days: a fear that the prolonged battle for the nomination -- which once seemed to energize the party -- may have begun to do more harm than good.

McCain has been making mistakes, Leahy said Friday in a written statement, but is "getting a free ride on those gaffes, because the Democratic candidates have to focus not on him but on each other."

"Sen. Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to," he said. "As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out."

A complication for Clinton, as she courts superdelegates, is the rocky history that she and Bill Clinton have with many in the Democratic establishment.

Obama portrays her as a Washington fixture, and after 15 years inside the Beltway -- eight of them as first lady -- the New York senator is very much steeped in the capital and its culture. So, too, are Clinton's campaign team and many of her political allies.

Even so, she and the former president have long had a more complex and difficult relationship with fellow Democrats -- especially those on Capitol Hill -- than might be expected for a couple who have reigned like no pair since Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Whether it was the botched effort to reform healthcare; tough votes on taxes, trade and welfare; the president's "triangulation" against fellow Democrats; or the Monica S. Lewinsky mess, the Clintons often made life uncomfortable for their party peers during eight years in the White House.

"There's a lot of feeling among Democrats on the Hill that the Clintons did very little for the party. It was all about them," said one Democratic lawmaker, an Obama supporter who did not want to be identified in order to preserve a working relationship with Clinton. "We lost seats in Congress, we lost governorships, we lost statehouses. . . . And the whole time defending [President Clinton] through the impeachment process, the entire Democratic agenda got shelved."

The latent tensions might be just so much psychodrama, or a political footnote, except that Clinton is now turning to some of the same lawmakers who felt used and abused -- along with state party leaders, who have their own gripes -- to help win the party's presidential nomination.

"It sure would be helpful to her if there was a little more personal loyalty to her in the hearts of those 300 or 400 people who are ultimately going to decide this," said one neutral Democratic strategist who, like most of those critical of the Clintons, did not want to be identified to avoid angering the couple.

Steve Elmendorf, who was a top lieutenant to former Democratic House Leader Dick Gephardt, was at the center of much of the friction between the Clinton White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill. Like his former boss, Elmendorf is backing Clinton.

"There were definitely tensions," Elmendorf said. "But I haven't heard a whole lot of people say, 'They screwed us on NATFA. They screwed us on welfare reform,' " he continued, citing two of the biggest legislative battles of the Clinton years. "I think most people ended up in a pretty decent place with the Clintons."

Still, Clinton's hard-edged campaign against Obama has irked many Democrats. Those close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) said she did not appreciate a letter this week from Clinton donors objecting to her statement that primary and caucus results should dictate the final choice of superdelegates.

Pelosi was to speak Friday night at the California Democratic Convention in San Jose. Bill Clinton addresses the gathering on Sunday -- and probably will woo superdelegates there.

For Hillary Clinton, Leahy's move was especially stinging, because the Vermont senator was a staunch defender of President Clinton during his impeachment ordeal.

Leahy said Obama's lead in delegates appeared insurmountable. Obama is ahead 1,623 to 1,499, according to the Associated Press, and it takes 2,024 to win the nomination.

Dodd, a former presidential candidate, was more measured than Leahy, telling the National Journal on Thursday that Clinton should drop out of the race next month if voters keep rallying behind Obama.

Still, Clinton has previously defied those urging her early exit, with good results in New Hampshire, then Ohio. Many had expected Clinton losses in those states to cut short her candidacy.

When asked Friday in Indiana about Obama's comment that the race seemed like a good movie that was going on too long, Clinton joked: "I like long movies."

michael.finnegan@ latimes.com

mark.barabak@latimes.com

Times staff writer Noam Levey in Hammond, Ind., contributed to this report.

Original here

Obama Rewriting Rules for Raising Campaign Money Online

When Christen Braun decided it was time to learn more about the presidential candidates, the 28-year-old high school teacher from suburban Pittsburgh turned to Google -- right where Sen. Barack Obama's campaign was waiting for her.

Her search triggered an ad for Obama's Web site, which prompted Braun, a Republican, to sign up for the Democratic senator's e-mail list -- and then to make her first political contribution, for $25.

Such transactions help illustrate how Obama has shattered fundraising records and challenged ideas about the way presidential bids are financed. While past campaigns have relied largely on support from small circles of wealthy and well-connected patrons, Obama has received contributions from more than 1 million donors. He raised $91 million in the first two months of 2008 alone, most of it in small amounts over the Internet.

Obama's unprecedented online fundraising success is often depicted as a spontaneous reaction to a charismatic candidate, particularly by young, Internet-savvy supporters. But it is the result of an elaborate marketing effort that has left Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, his rival for the Democratic nomination, and Sen. John McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, struggling to catch up.

Obama aides say their goal has been to "build an online relationship" with supporters who will not only give money but also knock on doors and help register voters for the candidate. To do so, they have spent heavily on Internet ads -- $2.6 million in February alone, more than 10 times as much as Clinton and more than 20 times as much as McCain.

Ads for Obama pop up on political Web sites, such as the left-leaning blog Daily Kos, and on more general ones, such as those of newspapers. Anyone visiting the Dallas Morning News in the weeks before the Texas primary, for instance, was likely to see an Obama appeal stretched along one edge of the screen. The campaign has also attached ads to certain search terms, such as "Iowa caucus locations" or "Ohio primary," on Yahoo, Google and Microsoft search engines.

Obama has targeted unlikely sites, such as the conservative Washington Times, where an ad for the candidate appeared yesterday on the same page as a story about an economic speech he gave that morning. But a click on the ad did not lead to a request for donations; instead, it took users to a page where they could sign up for invitations to campaign events.

This approach -- not directly asking for donations -- has been part of the campaign's strategy of slow-walking its way into supporters' wallets. Newcomers are led to a blog and an online store and are offered a chance to join local Obama groups.

Zack Exley, a campaign consultant who oversaw Internet fundraising for Sen. John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign, said Obama's e-mails to potential donors stand in stark contrast to those sent by the Clinton campaign.

One recent e-mail, from former president Bill Clinton, was blunt: "Any donation, even as little as $5, can make a difference in this campaign. If you haven't given online yet, now is the time."

Exley said that while the Clinton team has been "really aggressive," the Obama campaign has taken more time to build a rapport with potential donors.

"If you just look at the e-mails and the rhythm -- the Obama campaign has not asked for money every time they could have," Exley said. "They've tried to really show people that they're not just after your money. They're not treating you like an ATM."

Obama's online investment has not come cheap. In January, he spent $768,000 on Web ads, while Clinton spent $171,000 and McCain spent $151,000, campaign finance records show. In February, when Obama spent $2.6 million on ads, Clinton spent $198,000 and McCain spent $111,000.

Obama's take via the Internet in January and February has dwarfed those of his rivals. Clinton raised $37 million online; McCain raised $22 million overall but has not said how much of that came in online.

Political consultants who specialize in online fundraising say Obama has, in two months, rewritten the rules for raising campaign cash.

"Anytime you can reach 1 million donors with the click of a mouse, you redefine the way campaign finance is done in American politics," said Philip A. Musser, a Republican political strategist who serves as a consultant to Google.

The Internet allows a candidate's message to be put in front of virtually any audience. Emily's List, the nation's largest political action committee, spent heavily on Clinton during the run-up to the Iowa caucuses and ran ads that appeared when women in Iowa searched Google for such terms as "recipe," "stocking stuffer" and "post-Thanksgiving sales."

"We really were trying to get to women where they live," said Ramona Oliver, a spokeswoman for the group.

But whether the ads, which largely serve as points of entry, translate into support is not clear.

When one of Obama's ads caught Braun's attention, she clicked. But that was just the beginning. She was met by a welcome screen that presented an obstacle: It asked the visitor to supply an e-mail address to proceed.

At first she hesitated. The schoolteacher described herself as "one of those apathetic people who always felt, 'What does my single vote matter?' " But Braun wanted to learn more about Obama's education programs, so she relented.

Then the e-mails started to arrive.

One told her about the candidate's plan to end the war in Iraq. Another sought her help in registering voters. A video of Obama's "major speech on race" was sent. Of the dozens of e-mails she received, only a handful directly asked for money.

The approach paid off. This year she made four $25 contributions, and she also persuaded her father, a lifelong Republican, to register as a Democrat so he could join her in voting for Obama.

Original here