Clinton Spin Call: "We Have Momentum"

An upbeat, no-pausing Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson claimed momentum for the Clinton campaign in Ohio and Texas.

"I have avoided making Namath-esque predictions throughout this campaign," said Wolfson, the Clinton campaign's New York-bred communications chief. "But I believe it will be very clear [on Wednesday morning] which campaign will have the better of the day and which campaign will have had the worst of it. I am supposititious about making declarative positions, but I believe we will be the successful campaign on Tuesday."

Penn and Wolfson listed three reasons why they said Obama was on the defensive: their chief economics adviser, Austan Goolsbee, was caught back-channeling with the Canadian government on NAFTA; the trial of former Obama pal Tony Rezko; and the Clinton gambit to raise questions about Obama's fitness to be commander in chief.

Reporters came back to the delegate gap between the two. Even if Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, she'll have to win a lot more states by a huge margin to regain the delegate lead. Wolfson and Penn laid out the following scenario: Losing Texas and Ohio means that a "serious case of buyer's remorse" is setting in for Democrats," Wolfson said. "Florida and Michigan are back on the table again," Penn said. Wolfson ticked off a list of states that Clinton had won, including Tennessee, California, New York, California and Massachusetts. "Every week, the Obama campaign holds a conference call to declare her" meaning Clinton "dead." "There's a lot left here before picking the right nominee," Penn said, chiming in.

Comments

Unless the polls are wildly wrong, Clinton won't get anywhere near the 20-point margins she needs to stay viable.

Florida and Michigan are not "back on the table," and never will be -- until Clinton concedes and Obama can seat them with impunity.

Whether or not Clinton wins the popular vote in OH and TX tomorrow, it's over.

Posted by Kevin | March 3, 2008 11:42 AM

[Obama's l]osing Texas and Ohio [would mean] that a "serious case of buyer's remorse is setting in for Democrats," Wolfson said.

No, it wouldn't.

It would mean that Democratic primary voters in Texas and Ohio gave Clinton more votes than Obama --nothing more and nothing less.

What was the name of Saddam Hussein's Interior Ministry spokesman again?

Posted by Reality Sammitch | March 3, 2008 11:43 AM

If things are going so well, why did Mark Penn through Ickes, Wolfson & Solis-Doyle under the bus to the LA Times this weekend?

Posted by neilrlca | March 3, 2008 11:48 AM

"Whether or not Clinton wins the popular vote in OH and TX tomorrow, it's over."

Yup. And it's a shame that her campaign has redefined "success" so far downwards that the narrowest of victories tomorrow will keep Clinton in the game, despite the fact that it's literally impossible for her to win without destroying the party in the process.

But no matter. Why go out gracefully when she can lose in a 45-state blowout a few months from now? Why not point out those 20-point leads that Clinton has blown in the last two weeks? (Talk about buyer's remorse!) For that matter, why mention any of this when you can offer Dr. Marc's Patented Konference Kall Kliffs' Notes(tm)?

The good news is, if Obama can pull out any sort of popular vote victory tomorrow, it's so, so over. I mean, it's over anyway, but no way will she be able to go on. Not even Hillary has that much shame... right?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 11:48 AM

"our spittle-flinging tirades and shitstorm of totally baseless accusation are working!. and by working we mean that our candidate, once the 'inevitable' nominee, will now maybe draw enough delegates to give us an opportunity to defy the DNC and coerce enough superdelegates into our camp to come within a few dozen delegates that would allow us to keep flinging mud at Senator Obama until the convention!"

please drop out of the race now. we're tired of Clintons and Clintonism.

Posted by BA | March 3, 2008 11:57 AM

Yes. I saw this spin coming.

It all started with we have "35 million" So it appears that people are coming out of the woodwork for them; However, didn't they lie about money once before?

In addition, push and pretend there is more to a memo rumor then there really is about NAFTA and let doubt set in. (her big weakness)

Also, complain and blame the media for your ineptness and mismanagement of the campaign (result-MSM coverage all Clinton all the time this weekend.

And then act as though your human, likable and winning.

All I have to say is DON'T fall for it!

Posted by bsd | March 3, 2008 11:57 AM

People don't get out of the race with 1200+ delegates.
Why would she? People with over a thousand delegates go to the convention. Hillary's success has made it almost impossibble for Obama to clinch with pledged delegates and so its really important for her campaign to keep going.
FDR won on the third ballot. Lincoln on the !!th.
Superdelegates can't vote til then so she should fight on.
Obama people here on this blog don't seem to understand that delegates give a candidate a lot of power and Hillary's delegates may block his path to clinching it until he makes enough deals to clear the path.
If she wins tomorrow its going to be a very exciting few months.

Posted by Michael C. | March 3, 2008 11:58 AM

Michael, thank you for those relevant examples from 76 and 148 years ago respectively. You're certainly right that it will be an exciting few months. Thinking about how my candidate's restricted from spending more than $5 million between now and the convention, and how the other guys are going to commit murder/suicide in the meantime is enough to make me wish that I were a Republican.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 12:02 PM

BTW guys I found some brilliant/awesome analysis on Obama’s campaign. I haven’t seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out “Al-Qaeda Gets Offended” http://savagepolitics.com/?p=162 and “Predatory Lenders and the Red Phone” on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=158

Plus check the news article “The Intern….” Here is the news bit:
“An additional cut into the ‘messianic’ mesh of Barack Hussein Obama is looming in the distance. “Super Tuesday 2″ turned out to be not only the biggest test for both Democratic candidates during this electoral season, but also the start of the Tony Rezko case in Illinois (fraud and corruption charges). The case has plenty of new prosecution witnesses and novel evidence that are prone to certainly embarrass the Presidential hopeful. Recently the head magistrate in the case, Judge Amy St Eve, declared that the presentation of evidence regarding the finder’s fee ($375,000) which was allegedly skimmed from investment quotas paid by the Illinois state teachers’ pension fund, must include the $10,000 which ended up in the Obama campaign through the donation of a man called Joseph Aramanda. The prosecution has found that many of these “redirections” of funds to Obama (and others) were done at Rezko’s direct behest and not on their own accord. Additionally it has been found that Mr. Aramanda’s son, John Aramanda, was able to land a ‘highly coveted’ internship in Barack Obama’s Washington Senate office a year after said funds landed in the Senator’s campaign bank account. As the Times UK reports, neither Joseph Aramanda nor his son have been accused of any wrong doing, and the Obama campaign denies that the internship was ‘bought’ for with the donation. Nevertheless, what is quite interesting regarding this new development in the Rezko case is, that there was apparently a lot of money from the ’slum lord’s’ coffers that did not arrive directly from him into the Obama campaign but that were instead “redirected” through other individuals.
As we all know, Obama has admitted his faulty judgment in dealing with Tony Rezko (he has called it a “bone headed mistake”), and has claimed to have given all of this ‘dirty money’ to charity. What he has NOT done is provide true transparency regarding his other business relations involving Rezko and, he has not provided satisfactory information regarding what has happened to all of that money that he DID receive from ‘other sources’ and that may soon be proven by the courts to have also come from illegitimate sources. As the trial commences and participants begin to testify, it would be quite interesting to see how much work the Mainstream Media will have to do to keep this story under wraps.”

SAVAGEPOLITICS.com offers brilliant writing & analysis.

Posted by Elsy | March 3, 2008 12:14 PM

Jesus, I hope she loses just so we don't have to hear from these clowns anymore. I'd be embarrassed for them if they weren't so loathsome.

BB

Posted by BillB | March 3, 2008 12:22 PM

Jesus, I hope she loses just so we don't have to hear from these clowns anymore. I'd be embarrassed for them if they weren't so loathsome.

BB

Posted by BillB | March 3, 2008 12:22 PM

Six weeks ago, Obama was down 20 points in Texas -- now, he has a narrow lead.

Three weeks ago, Obama was down by 20 points in Ohio -- now, he is within 6, Zogby just released the first Ohio poll that has him leading, by 2.

Did someone say "momentum"?

Posted by horizonr | March 3, 2008 12:24 PM

Her dropping out is wishful thinking. Policy is back on people's minds. The economy is more important to voters than Iraq now, and Obama has no experience there.

She'll win tomorrow, she's opening campaign offices for the Western primaries, and Pennsylvania is a lot like Ohio.

Obama has peaked. Maybe he'll be vice president.

Posted by Harry Haller | March 3, 2008 12:28 PM

Clinton, once again, is claiming victory before the battle's been fought. Hasn't she already had this egg on her face before?

I love how they play both sides. "Obama doesn't have momentum", but they "need a firewall." Or, if she doesn't win Ohio and Texas, she loses the nomination... or in a different week, it is really that Obama needs to win ALL FOUR all of a sudden.

HRC is like the annoying guy who gets rejected by the attractive chicks consistently, lowering his standards each time, and when he finally hooks up with a big fat-nasty broad, he points and laughs at all of us for being single.

This isn't to equal her voting bloc to big fat-nasties, but to illustrate that she keeps lowering her previously high standards, and claims victory and beams with pride when she barely meets an incredibly low bar. And this is presuming she even wins tomorrow!

Posted by socctty | March 3, 2008 12:30 PM

Unless the polls are wildly wrong, Clinton won't get anywhere near the 20-point margins she needs to stay viable.

She doesn't need twenty point margins. If Hillary wins Texas, Rhode Island and Ohio, this is whole new ballgame. Even the media is finally coming around.

The good news is, if Obama can pull out any sort of popular vote victory tomorrow, it's so, so over. I mean, it's over anyway, but no way will she be able to go on.

If it really were "over anyway" you wouldn't feel the need to spin just risable B.S. Clinton's gonna pull this thing out. I just feel it. Oh, and the Rezko trial opens, when, tomorrow?

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 12:32 PM

Her strategy seems to be "if I can't win the nomination, no one can!"

Its kinda fascinating to watch a political career self-destruct.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 3, 2008 12:37 PM

The automatic delegates know that, right, Igloo?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 3, 2008 12:38 PM

Its kinda fascinating to watch a political career self-destruct.

Oh, I wouldn't be that hard on Obama if I were you. Peaking early is no sin, and he'll likely wind up as the vice president -- not too shabby a consolation prize.

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 12:40 PM

Should Obama win TX (as I expect) and/or OH (which I don't), HRC really needs to drop out, or seriously risk going down in major flames.

As horizonr pointed out, it only took Obama three weeks to bring OH to a virtual dead heat. Imagine what he will do with seven weeks, focused entirely on PA... It will be HRC's death by a thousand cuts.

Most of all, it will seriously bring up the question of her judgment.

Posted by JR | March 3, 2008 12:43 PM

This is momentum like the military operation in Iraq has momentum: it's not the worst ever, so it's all good!

Posted by norbizness | March 3, 2008 1:10 PM

YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT:-)

If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose ;-) husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary's than they had ever been before or since.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..

You Might Be An Idiot!

If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)

Best regards

jacksmith...

Posted by jacksmith | March 3, 2008 1:13 PM

Obama's going to win Texas(Delegates) and Vermont. Hillary is going to win Ohio and Rhode Island. The total pledged delagate shift is very likely to be single digits. Hillary won't quit, and Obama will begin to lose votes, if he tries to pressure her to quit, even if it's through surrogates.

My prediction is that it will go to the convention with Obama leading by around 50 pledged delegates, then Clinton will win off the notanotherjimmycarter delegates.

Ultimately, John Mccain will be the next president, due to half of the democratic base losing thier enthusiasm.

Posted by Greg | March 3, 2008 1:13 PM

Igloo, you're talking nonsense. Please learn how the delegate process works.

If Clinton only wins the popular vote in TX and OH and breaks even in pledged delegates, it becomes basically mathematically impossible for her to reobtain the delegate lead.

At that point, from a trickle to a flood as the math gets internaized, supers will close ranks around Obama and force Clinton to concede.

And we will all laugh at you.

Posted by Ethan | March 3, 2008 1:15 PM

Are these guys evil or just plain stupid in thinking that they can seat the Florida and Michigan delegations and not start a civil war? If this is an indication of the kinds of people Hillary would put in high places in her administration, we're doomed.

Posted by Howard B. | March 3, 2008 1:17 PM

Are these guys evil or just plain stupid in thinking that they can seat the Florida and Michigan delegations and not start a civil war? If this is an indication of the kinds of people Hillary would put in high places in her administration, we're doomed.

Posted by Howard B. | March 3, 2008 1:17 PM

Bill Clinton as the best president? Ha ha! Jack Smith, you might win for most laughable post. But keep trying...

Posted by anon | March 3, 2008 1:22 PM

Screw you, Obamaites. I KNOW that Hillary will prevail. I just feel it. She's back, on a roll, and has HUGE MOMENTUM! The Automatic delegates will carry her to the promised land!

Go Hill!

Posted by Igloo | March 3, 2008 1:30 PM

Good to see another clear thinker in a thread of deluded Obamanians, Igloo!

You're right about Ohio and Rhode Island changing the narrative (I wouldn't include Texas - 1)red state 2) caucuses 3)obama outspending us, etc.). When hillary pulls off high-single-digit wins in these 2 bellweather states the media's narrative will quickly change to the "comeback kid" angle which I believe will completely flip the momentum and carry Hillary through PA and Puerto Rico, then to the convention, and finally the nomination.

Can she win the most pledged delegates? By my math, not even close. Can she win the popular vote? Very unlikely. Can she win the most states? Again, not even close. Can she outraise Obama's record setting campaign donations? Not a chance.

Does any of this matter? NOPE.

Automatic delegates know this. Hillary '08!

Posted by Fred Agbot | March 3, 2008 1:32 PM

OK, I'll admit it. I don't know who really supports Clinton and who just wants to make funny.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | March 3, 2008 1:39 PM

Hillary is the comeback crone!

Posted by Susan | March 3, 2008 1:40 PM

I want ardently, with soul-wrenching earnestness, to believe in hope.

Posted by Notebook Ninja | March 3, 2008 1:43 PM

Jeff larson:

I've been asking all week: is there precedent for her to get out?

Teddy didn't get out and it didn't screw up his reputation.

It isn't Hillary's fault that he didn't or can't get the 2025 delegates to win it until the convention. It isn't her responsibility to take charge of his destiny.
The argument about "what's best for the party" cuts both ways. It isn't who gets closest to 2025 that matters, rather who gets there. For the lack of a sewed up nomination, it could just as easily be obama the great man who steps aside saying, 'y'know I just couldn't get it done and for the good of the party, I'll make a deal with hillary and let her go forth'.
Spending limits for either candidates after the primaries and before the convention will affect both of these fine candidates and yet history proves anything can happen at the convention.
that's where the FDR and Lincoln stories matter: their wins nationally were not tainted by the convention fights, nor were their effectiveness as presidents hampered by the convention fights.
Each one is entitled to their destiny.
They each have the VP slot to coerce the other with. But this wide spread assumption that people with over a thousand delegates step aside or damage themselves is idiocy: take a look at ted kennedy, powerhouse of the senate.
Jeff Larson, why do you think she should pull over and stop when she has lots and lots of money and delegates and chances?
And which president have we ever had do you really think wouldn't fight like a grizzly bear to seat two state delegations?? Do you think washington would fight? Jefferson? Adams? FDR? Reagan? Kennedy? Lincoln? Truman? Every one of them would play it out and fight like hell.

Posted by Michael C. | March 3, 2008 1:47 PM

It amazes me to see how the Obama fans are reacting. Who in their right mind would concede a race because they were down a few points? Has anyone looked at Huck's numbers lately?! He's certainly not bowing out.
It won't be Hillary who breaks up this party. It will most likely be the Obamaniacs who are already screaming and kicking because the numbers are too close! Get over it! Hillary's a fighter and this is just that...a fight. She will fight all the way to the convention. If Obama can't handle it, maybe HE should concede. That makes about as much sense as Hillary getting out now. Grow up you punks! The Democratic party is split down the middle over these two. Millions of Dem's have chosen their candidate and as of right now, there is no CLEAR winner. Let the process take it's course.

Posted by KT | March 3, 2008 2:08 PM

KT: Do you speak for the lesbian faction?

Posted by Karen | March 3, 2008 2:20 PM

Hey jacksmith!

Can you cut the insulting garbage about a fellow Democrat? Your choice may not be mine but do you really think insulting me will make me decide to support your candidate?

All you are doing is playing into the Republican game plan to split Democrats. Argue issues and keep the personal attacks out of it.

Posted by Other Ed | March 3, 2008 2:34 PM

Karen:
No... obviously I speak for the ADULT faction.
Other than just being mean-spirited, why would my post lead you to think I were speaking for the lesbian faction? Was it the overly "butch" way I typed "Dem's"?

This is what I'm talking about. The senseless punches at each other are going to break the party up. Not the candidates.

Posted by KT | March 3, 2008 2:40 PM

Here's how its going to work:
If Hillary does not win Texas and Ohio by over 10%, she will stay in the race. Her ability to take a lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, and fundraising will become mathematically impossible, but she will soldier on to the convention, becoming more and more negative in her attacks with Barack forced to respond. All the while, John McCain will be raising money and beginning a national narrative against the Democrats, magnifying their own attacks against one another. Hillary's base will become more and more angry that Obama's lead will not disappear and Obama's people will become more and more upset that Hillary, despite her 100+ delegate shortfall, refuses to concede the election. At the convention, if Superdelegates override the pledged delegate count and the popular vote will of the people, Obama's delegates could simply walk out of the convention, dividing the party. In this General Election scenario, McCain will point to Hillary's inability to unite even her own party, and her unwillingness to concede even when the PEOPLE of the United States choose not to vote for her. McCain wins in a Reagan-Mondale style landslide, and Democratic Superdelegates wonder why they didn't coalesce around Obama once Hillary winning became mathematically impossible. Obama runs against McCain in 2012, wins handily, and Clinton is seen as a demagogue in the Democratic Party for the rest of her Senate Career, forever tarnishing the Clinton legacy. The end.

Posted by Byron | March 3, 2008 4:15 PM

Hey Jacksmith

Sounds like you want to elect Bill Clinton again and are trying really hard to convince us all that Hilliary is going to let Bill run things from behind the scenes.

Sounds scary....

Posted by AR | March 3, 2008 4:25 PM

OK, I'll admit it. I don't know who really supports Clinton and who just wants to make funny.
--Posted by Tom in Raleigh

I'm glad I'm not alone. e.g.:

Turning a 20-point lead into a 5-point lead over 3 weeks of campaigning constitutes massive forward momentum!

Huckabee isn't out! She's another Huckabee!

Who cares about the pledged delegates? I can't believe Obama's supporters still think they matter.

Tuesday will bring a single-digit move in the 160 pledged delegate difference. Then [insert undefined miracle] and she enters the convention trailing by 50 delegates!

Posted by Deborah | March 3, 2008 4:36 PM

The Clinton team has a lot of momentum all right - angular momentum. When you go 0-11, about all that's left is spin.

Posted by Karl in Maryland | March 3, 2008 6:01 PM

The Clinton team has a lot of momentum all right - angular momentum. When you go 0-11, about all that's left is spin.

Posted by Karl in Maryland | March 3, 2008 6:01 PM

To Karen (with her irrelevant question to KT about sexuality) and other hysterical Obama supporters:

Why such hysteria and fury at any discussion of your candidate's experience and/or substance and/or chances?

Seriously, what is going on in your personal lives that makes you react so bitterly and with such vitriol?

The language of many of your posts demonstrates your deeply-irrational anger with the reality that certain people do not agree with you. Clearly, you have tied your fragile identity to that of your candidate, and so you take any discussion about Obama's shortcomings as if you yourself were being discussed. And, yes, in fact, you are total morons.

Posted by john | March 3, 2008 6:14 PM

"And, yes, in fact, you are total morons."
And Ad Hominem name calling totally shows you're not a hypocrite John. You can't chastise someone for name calling then turn around and make a blanket statement that all Obama supporters are 'morons.'
Do you think before you type?

Posted by Byron | March 3, 2008 6:22 PM

I am reading a book by Barak Obama called Dreams from my Father. It makes very interesting reading. It tells about the kind of experience that he has working for the poorer people of the country from the grassroots that I think this country now needs which is what I would think policy experience is all about because he can identify with peoples' real needs. I think he DOES have experience. I think it is a real plus also that he is a man of mixed race. I think he is also a very eloquent speaker which I think is also important for a President. I think he has the potential to really unite America. I think his exposure to the Muslim way of life during his childhood is also going to help him as President of America to understand and solve the problems that exist between the different religious worlds. I am a strong Christian myself of no particular church affiliation who comes from England originally, with a history from Wales and Scotland which dates back to the Jocobite rebellion in the 1700's. I think history tells us that its time for someone like Barak.

Posted by Chris Marshall | March 3, 2008 6:49 PM

Thanks, Byron. Clearly I was not thinking before I typed!!!

The last sentence should read start with the word "But", not "And".

Posted by john | March 3, 2008 7:04 PM

The Clinton team has a lot of momentum all right - angular momentum.

Sounds like my golf swing...

Hillary and her serial philanderer husband make me want to throw up.

Posted by Matt | March 3, 2008 7:29 PM