All Blog Posts from Horserace

A wave of momentum has carried Barack Obama to big victories in every contest since Super Tuesday, and it now appears that wave is headed toward Texas, where a new poll shows Obama and Hillary Clinton in a statistical tie.

The ABC News/Washington Post poll of likely Democratic voters in Texas shows Clinton at 48 percent support, with Obama at 47 percent – a gap well within the survey's 4 percent margin of error. The poll was conducted from Feb. 16-20, meaning most of its data comes from before Obama's big win in Wisconsin's Feb. 19 primary.

Ohio voters were also polled – here, Clinton's lead is shrinking but still significant. In the Buckeye State, she leads Obama, 50 percent to 43 percent.

Both polls reflect the trend previously seen in other states: Clinton starts out with double-digit leads, sometimes more than 20 percentage points, only to see her advantage evaporate as the Obama campaign becomes active. Only a few days ago, polls in Texas showed her with an 8 percentage point lead over Obama. In Ohio, her lead was even bigger.

Early in the Democratic race, it appeared momentum wasn't much of a factor, with Clinton and Obama virtually trading wins and fighting to a draw on Super Tuesday. But after a series of wins in states where Obama out-organized and out-spent Clinton, it appears the Illinois senator has become strong enough to eat into her leads even in states where, on paper, she should have a clear advantage.

With the Democratic race now coming down to March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, outside groups are getting involved in hopes of having a say, reports CBS News senior political consultant Marc Ambinder. The most notable of those is the Teamsters union, which is set to endorse Barack Obama today.

The third largest union in the United States – the first, the Service Employees International Union, has endorsed Obama, while the National Education Association has remained neutral – the Teamsters were waiting until after Wisconsin's primary to make their choice, Ambinder says in a blog post.

The union has 1.4 million members and its backing could be particularly useful in Ohio, a blue-collar battleground, and Pennsylvania on April 22, if the race is still competitive. The endorsement would be Obama's second of the day from a labor union, after the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers.

But Clinton will get help in Ohio – as well as Texas and Pennsylvania – from an as-yet-unnamed 527 political group (named after the section of the tax code regulating such organizations). The group, Ambinder reports, is asking Clinton donors for pledges of up to $100,000, with a goal of raising $10 million by the end of next week. The law forbids 527 groups from coordinating with campaigns, but the effort appears to be an open secret among the former first lady's donors.

Update: The Teamsters have now made their endorsement of Obama official. “Senator Obama understands the challenges working people face every day,” union President Jim Hoffa said in a statement. “He is the candidate in the best position to lead our movement to restore the American dream for working people in this country. Senator Obama will fight for better wages, real health care reform, stronger retirement security, fair trade and an end to the outsourcing of good jobs. He understands the importance of giving workers a voice at work and will fight for strong unions to help rebuild America’s middle class.”

The endorsement decision follows a meeting in Austin, Texas, between Hoffa and Obama, the statement said.

Today Barack Obama took to the editorial page of USA Today, laying out the conditions under which he would agree to accept public financing in the general election – an idea his campaign once embraced wholeheartedly, only to be seen as wavering in recent days.

While Obama reiterates his earlier promise to "aggressively pursue" a public financing agreement with the Republican nominee – likely John McCain – if he wins the Democratic nomination, Obama also says that such an agreement needs to go beyond accepting public funding: It also needs to include a promise by both candidates to "commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limited their own parties to legal forms of involvement."

Those conditions weren't part of Obama's original statement on accepting public financing in November 2007, when he said in a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, "I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." Now, it appears Obama wants that publicly financed general election to be relatively free of outside influences as well.

Campaigning in Ohio, McCain signaled he'd make Obama's financing an issue, particularly if the Illinois senator opts out of the public system. "We either keep our word or we don't keep our word. I intend to keep my word to the American people," he said, according to the Associated Press. "I think the American people would expect him to hold to that commitment, especially if we want to bring about change."

If Obama were to accept public financing as the Democratic nominee, he would have more than $80 million at his disposal to spend over two months – more than enough, even by this race's standards. But McCain would have the same amount, giving Obama no advantage for the final two months of the election. Still, Obama would be able to raise and spend money freely up until the moment he formally accepts the Democratic nomination, likely giving him an edge headed into what would be the campaign's home stretch.

With the Republican nomination now all but his, John McCain is opting out of the public financing program that – back when his campaign was running on fumes – seemed to be the only way for him to maintain any sort of viability.

According to the Associated Press, McCain informed the Federal Election Commission and the Treasury Department that he was withdrawing from the public financing system, which would have infused his campaign with $5.8 million in matching funds but also required him to abide by spending restrictions that would likely prove fatal in a general election against either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Both Democrats long ago said they would forgo the public financing system.

McCain raised just shy of $10 million in the last quarter of 2007, but actually had more debt than cash on hand. However, the campaign reported raising $7 million in the first three weeks of January – a pace that has almost certainly accelerated now that the Arizona senator is his party's presumed nominee. Now, McCain will be able to spend that money however, and wherever, he wants.

Read full post…

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader, whose very name can rile up Democrats still stinging from Al Gore's narrow loss in the 2000 election, is flirting with what would be his third major run for the presidency. News reports indicate he's filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission and he's also launched a new Web site, NaderExplore08.org.

The site's launch comes on the same day as Democrat John Edwards' exit from the presidential race. Nader had kind words for Edwards previously, praising his progressive stance on a number of issues and his willingness to challenge corporate interests.

Nader's committee is asking for initial contributions of $300, for which the donor will receive DVDs of Michael Moore's documentary "Sicko," a documentary about Nader, "An Unreasonable Man," along with three books. A posting on the site says the exploratory committee hopes to enlist the support of 1,000 people in each congressional district.

"Maybe we’re wrong," the site's main page says. "Maybe the Democrats and Republicans will nominate Presidential candidates this year who will stand up against the war profiteers, the nuclear industry, the credit card industry, the corporate criminals, big oil, and the drug and health insurance industries. We doubt it."

Nader's latest flirtation with a run is likely to be greeting with eye rolls from the many Democrats who believe that his presence on the Florida ballot in 2000 prevented Al Gore from overtaking George W. Bush in the state and, therefore, the electoral vote. They can take solace, however, in the fact that Nader's 2004 bid had nowhere near the following of his previous try, and he was largely a nonfactor in that race.

Whether the subject is Florida or Super Tuesday, Barack Obama's campaign appears to be shifting its focus from winning contests to winning delegates, as illustrated by campaign manager David Plouffe's conference call on Tuesday.

The call started out with a special guest appearance from 2004 Democratic nominee John Kerry, who endorsed the Illinois senator in early January.

Kerry was there to urge the reporters on the call to not treat today's Democratic primary in Florida as a significant contest. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are on the ballot, but because the state's primary date is too early according to Democratic National Committee rules, the committee has stripped the state of all its delegates.

"Speaking as someone who's been through this process and recently won the Democratic nomination, I can tell you that what this race is about right now is delegates," Kerry said. "The bottom line is Florida does not offer any delegates. It is not a legitimate race. It should not become a spin race. It should not become a fabricated race."

Read full post…

Since his landslide win in Saturday's South Carolina primary, Barack Obama has been riding a wave of good press coverage that will continue today when he receives the endorsement of Sen. Edward Kennedy, the Massachusetts liberal icon.

But the news is not all good for Obama. Antonin "Tony" Rezko, the former Obama fund-raiser Hillary Clinton described as a "slumlord" in a debate last Monday, was arrested this morning on an alleged bond violation, according to the Chicago Tribune. The paper says investigators had become concerned about the movement of some of Rezko's finances.

Rezko is set to stand trial in less than a month on corruption charges, and is accused of using various state agencies to extort kickbacks. What has drawn headlines are his connections to Obama, who was associated with Rezko throughout his rise in Illinois state politics. While Obama has never been accused of wrongdoing, he has still sought to distance himself from Rezko. More than $80,000 in campaign contributions linked to Rezko has since been donated to charity.

The news out of Chicago may not steal all of Obama's thunder today, but it could give Hillary Clinton a valuable talking point -- though the fact that a picture of Clinton and Rezko has emerged could blunt its impact somewhat. (Clinton says that, unlike Obama, she has no relationship with Rezko, and says the photo is just one of "hundreds of thousands of pictures" she has taken.)

The bad blood between the Clinton and Obama campaigns first reached a fevered pitch in the lead-up to Nevada's caucuses, and it appears the state will continue to serve as a battleground – not over votes, but over tactics.

The Obama campaign has asked the Nevada Democratic Party to investigate claims the Clinton campaign engaged in voter suppression on caucus day, including door closings, obstruction of voters, and improper handling of voter preference cards, according to the Associated Press. Obama's team says they aren't seeking a change in the outcome – Clinton won, 51 percent to Obama's 45 percent – so there may be other motives at play.

Both campaigns accused the other of dirty tricks in the days immediately before and after the caucuses. Clinton's side claims groups of Obama supporters tried to intimidate Clinton backers. And Obama's campaign has accused the Clinton campaign of distributing inaccurate instructions that resulted in registration at some caucus sites being cut off a half hour early.

With the race now firmly focused on South Carolina, why speak up about a past contest? Claims of voter suppression may strike a chord among African Americans, who make up a large part of the South Carolina electorate and endured widespread harassment and intimidation during the days of Jim Crow – some of which still continues today. And, on a larger scale, it could help back up the "they'll do anything to win" narrative the Obama campaign is trying to attach to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

If the headlines inspire the questions at tonight's Democratic debate in South Carolina, expect former President Bill Clinton to come up nearly as often as Hillary Clinton, the one who's actually a candidate.

Bill Clinton's actions, both during his administration and on the campaign trail on behalf of Hillary, have become a central point of contention in the Democratic race, and Obama recently added fuel to the fire when he suggested that Clinton failed to "change the trajectory" of the country while president, but Ronald Reagan did.

An angrier, edgier side of the president "from a place called Hope" has emerged in recent weeks, starting with his comment just before the New Hamsphire primary comparing Obama's views on Iraq – or his whole campaign, depending on who you listen to – to a "fairy tale." The former president has also accused Obama's campaign and its supporters of dirty tricks ahead of Nevada's caucuses, and in general, the man known as "Big Dog" has taken on the role of attack dog for his wife's campaign.

Tonight's debate will likely keep the Clintons vs. Obama story in the headlines for at least a few more days, barring a "burying the hatchet" moment like we saw at the previous debate that brought an effective end to a racially charged back-and-forth over the role of Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson in the passage of civil rights legislation.

But such peacemaking is unlikely, given Obama's comments today on Bill Clinton's aggressive posture. Speaking to ABC News, the Illinois senator said Clinton "has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling," and said he would "directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate."

Read full post…

Sen. Patrick Leahy's endorsement of Barack Obama today would at first seem to have little intrinsic value – Vermont has a tiny share of delegates and isn't even among the states voting on Feb. 5. But it does give Obama a good name to toss out, one that is seen as both experienced and a favorite of establishment Democrats.

Leahy was elected to the Senate in 1974, making him one of its most veteran members. Backing Obama, then, is a subtle rebuttal to Hillary Clinton's frequent claim that her experience in the Senate and as first lady makes her more qualified to be president. If an old hand like Leahy thinks Obama is the better candidate, it might convince other elected Democrats and donors that the Illinois senator deserves their support.

Leahy also chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and last year led the party's fight with former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales over the firings of several U.S. attorneys. His tussles with the Bush administration over Gonzales and other issues – especially civil liberties and other constitutional concerns – have made him popular with activist Democrats. Exit polls out of New Hampshire showed that Clinton beat Obama among registered Democrats, and the timing of this endorsement suggests it could be part of a bid to burnish Obama's credentials among that group.

Finally, Leahy has been an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war, and voted against the resolution authorizing the use of military force there – a resolution Clinton supported. Lately, however, the Clinton campaign, especially former President Bill Clinton, has been questioning the authenticity of Obama's opposition to the conflict. The endorsement from a consistent opponent of the war is a quiet rebuttal to the Clintons' assertions, and Obama alluded to the issue in a press release announcing Leahy's support.

"Senator Leahy had the judgment and courage to vote against the Iraq war, and he's been a champion of our rights here at home, and of human rights around the world," Obama said. "I look forward to working with him to stand up to the special interests, rally Democrats and Republicans together to get things done, and bring about change we can believe in."

Again, this endorsement, in and of itself, is unlikely to change any votes in Nevada and South Carolina. But it does indicate that the Obama campaign may be focusing on getting the backing of more Democrats to complement the candidate's existing edge among independent voters.