Omega Nelson had stopped for a cigarette in the heart of Harlem on Monday morning when he found himself in a political debate. As many are these days, this one was prompted by a reporter and focused on Bill Clinton's role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign.

"Look," said Mr. Nelson, who was sitting at the curb near Mr. Clinton's office on 125th Street, "all he's doing is what any man would do. When your woman tries to get somewhere, you got to help her. His wife is running for president and, being his woman is involved, so he got involved, too."

Mr. Nelson, 61 and unemployed, was not alone in his forgiving stance toward Mr. Clinton, who, by the sound of things on Monday, is as popular in Harlem now as he was when he opened his office there in July 2001.

While the blogosphere and commentariat rang this weekend with angry declarations that he had crossed a line in his criticism of Barack Obama, many in Harlem seemed to mull it over, shrug their shoulders and say they understood, even if they didn't quite agree.

"What Bill Clinton said - well, his wife is running for office," said Tonya Burnett, who was waiting outside the building to visit a city housing office. "He's got to represent just like she represented when he was running. I don't think it's such a big deal."

To be sure, interviews conducted on a single day, in front of a single building, are apt to produce a narrow point of view. Yet the building, at 55 West 125th Street, is an important piece of real estate in Mr. Clinton's world.

Many in Harlem were overjoyed when he moved in. A crowd of 2,000 - chanting "We love Bill!" - gathered on the streets, serenaded by a violin rendition of "We Shall Overcome."

Nonetheless, it was somewhat odd - and perhaps unexpected - to hear so many passing through the doors on Monday suggest that Mr. Clinton's comments were a natural reaction in support of his wife.

"It ain't about race and it ain't about issues," said Guy Wellington, 48. "It's about his wife. He wants Hillary to follow in his footsteps. That's what husbands do."

Of course, there were some outside the building who said they were disturbed by the attacks. (Mr. Clinton compared Mr. Obama to Jesse Jackson, in that both men have won the South Carolina primary, Mr. Jackson twice, leading many to surmise that the former president was suggesting that Mr. Obama could win the black vote but not the general election.) But even those who professed to be angry acknowledged it was wholly understandable for a man to stand up for his spouse.

"He's pushing the race card as much as he can," said Tyrone Matthews, 47, who was also visiting the housing office. "He wants his wife to win - any man would want his wife to win - but not like that."

Confusing matters greatly - or making them more interesting, depending where you stand - is what many have described as Mr. Clinton's virtual status as America's first black president. Harlem (or at least that portion of it represented by the traffic passing in and out of his building) presented itself on Monday as a postracial neighborhood, one that saw the elections more in terms of the economy and war in Iraq and less in terms of black and white.

"A lot of black people aren't really looking at race; they're looking at who does good and who doesn't,” said Tasha Wilson, 27. Many in the crowd suggested they would happily vote for Mrs. Clinton (or her husband, if he were running). As for Mr. Clinton's jabs at Senator Obama, "it's not going to affect the impression of him, not in the black community or not outside the political offices among the general people," Ms. Wilson said.

In one of those offices - the one belonging to Representative Charles B. Rangel, the dean of Harlem Democrats and a supporter of Mrs. Clinton - there was a feeling this weekend that Mr. Clinton should scale back his involvement in the campaign. "He's got to," Mr. Rangel said on Sunday. "The focus has got to get back on Hillary."

But people on the streets said that the focus was already on Mrs. Clinton and that Mr. Clinton's jibes, while perhaps unfortunate, were also to the point.

"You got to attack," said Spencer Wilson, 63. "You got to. It's ridiculous, but it's politics. He's not doing it because of racial stuff. He's doing it for his wife so they can have another turn up in the White House."

The Clintons' marriage has always been an inscrutable affair, inaccessible to easy explanation from the outside. In Harlem, however, people said it was transparent. Victory was the glue.

"He ought to be careful what he's saying," said Tyrone Rose, 41, "but the fact is he wants his wife to win. The campaign's going to get nasty and I think Bill Clinton has a good chance whenever he wants to win."

Bruce Gordon, 47, had visited a notary inside the building. He said the criticisms might even sharpen Mr. Obama.

"These questions have to come up. If Obama gets the nomination, folks will ask, 'So who are you?' So far, he's a nice white middle-class guy," said Mr. Gordon, acknowledging the cheekiness of his remark with a cagey little smile. "You try to pull a black thing on Bill Clinton, he's going to say, 'Now wait a minute now.' "

WASHINGTON - The race for the Democratic presidential nomination may have its divisive moments, but it is generating intense interest and enthusiasm among the party's rank and file: significantly greater, by several measures, than the Republican contest, political experts say.

In the first four contests in which both parties have competed, the Democrats have set records for turnout and substantially exceeded the Republican showing, according to state parties and state election tallies.

In South Carolina on Saturday, for example, more than 530,000 Democrats voted, nearly twice the Democratic turnout of 2004, and nearly 20 percent higher than the Republican vote the week before.

Other indicators of an enthusiasm gap show up in polls, with more Democrats than Republicans reporting excitement about voting this year and a strong commitment to their candidate, according to recent New York Times/CBS News polls. Democratic presidential candidates have also regularly out-raised the Republicans in campaign cash.

"The Democrats are having an extraordinary year in terms of raising money," said Anthony J. Corrado Jr., a professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Me., and an expert on campaign finance.

The meaning of all this for the November election, however, is a matter of dispute.

Democratic leaders argue that it points to a united, enthusiastic party that can expand the map of Democratic victories. Scott Brennan, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, said that three times as many Iowans shifted their registration to the Democratic Party on caucus day as shifted to the Republicans.

"It says people are very tired of Bush administration policies," Mr. Brennan said. “And the Democratic candidates really energize people. People were excited to get out to the caucuses."

Some Republicans dismiss that Democratic energy as typical for a party out of power for eight years, and argue that it augurs little for the general election.

Richard N. Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee and a lobbyist, said there was no reason for his party to "hit the panic button." A nominee will emerge in his party, Mr. Bond said, and present a clear enough contrast to the Democratic nominee that "it will reinvigorate the entire Republican operation."

Alluding to the possibility of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as the Democratic nominee, Mr. Bond added, "No one has the capacity to put the band back together again as much as she has."

Republican Party analysts also note that both Ronald Reagan and the senior George Bush were elected after Republican primaries in which turnout was lower than in the Democratic primaries.

"Democrats seem to frequently ignore the lessons of history, and they do so in 2008 at their own peril," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.

The sheer intensity of the Democratic primary battle could be problematic over the long haul. Outside analysts say that the sharp disputes and deepening divisions between Senator Barack Obama and Mrs. Clinton could, if not resolved, leave some voters disenchanted if their candidate did not prevail.

"That's a real question: Will the Democrats come away with a more divided, less upbeat set of constituents following the struggle between Obama and Hillary Clinton?" said Andrew Kohut, head of the Pew Research Center.

Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said, "There's obviously a heated battle going on in the Democratic Party, but this is not a party at war with itself. It's not just a slogan to say there's a lot more that unites Democrats than divides them, and that's not clear at all with the Republicans."

In a New York Times/CBS News poll after the New Hampshire primary, but before the debates of recent days, there was no significant difference between Mr. Obama's supporters and Mrs. Clinton's in terms of their commitment. About 6 in 10 of each candidate's supporters said their minds were made up. In a separate question, about 7 in 10 of the supporters of each candidate said they "strongly favored" their candidate.

For now, Democrats say they are elated at the overall energy among their voters. Democratic turnout set a record in the Iowa caucuses of about 239,000, twice the Republican turnout, and nearly twice the Democratic turnout four years ago. In New Hampshire, nearly 290,000 people voted in the Democratic primary, well above the Republican's and the Democrat's own turnout four years ago.

In Nevada, more than 117,000 voted in the Democratic caucuses - compared with 9,000 who participated in 2004 - and more than 44,000 voted in the Republican caucuses.

And in South Carolina, Democratic turnout was so high that some Democrats said the state might be in play in November. That is an extremely optimistic idea, given that the last time a Democrat carried South Carolina was 32 years ago, when Jimmy Carter won it.

Analysts offer a variety of explanations for the Democratic excitement. Both of the front-runners offer the prospect of a historic first, breaking the line of either color or sex. Disenchantment with President Bush and the direction of the country remains high, and change is a priority with Democrats and many independents, polls show.

Whatever the reason, a recent Pew survey found that 4 in 10 Americans said they found the Democratic contest "very interesting," nearly double the percentage (21 percent) who described the Republican race as "very interesting." Young people were unusually interested, the poll found. Within the parties, 57 percent of the Democrats said the Democratic campaign was "very interesting," while only 32 percent of the Republicans found their party's contest that engaging.

"I think it's real," said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego, of the energy gap. "Turnout and various poll data suggest Democrats are more eager to vote and happier with their choice set than Republicans. I think it reflects an eagerness to get the Bush administration behind them."

In fact, the biggest applause line at Obama and Clinton events is often a reminder that Mr. Bush's days in office are dwindling.

Hillary Clinton will attempt to regain much-needed campaign momentum tonight with a controversial stop in Florida, where polls suggest she will beat Barack Obama in today's primary.

The state is about to become the centre of a tug of war between the two candidates.

The Democrats banned campaigning in the state because it breached party rules by holding its primary before February 5, and stripped it of its 210 delegates to the party's convention in the summer.

MIAMI -- A smiling Hillary Rodham Clinton waved from the front page of the Miami Herald on Monday after an evening of fundraising in Florida. The image of Barack Obama flickered on TV screens across the state, from the Panhandle to the high-rises lining South Florida's Biscayne Bay.

But don't call it campaigning. That is forbidden under a pledge the White House hopefuls signed back when Florida threatened to encroach on Iowa's and New Hampshire's privileged early spots on the presidential nominating calendar.

The result is an odd but intense competition over not just votes but, perhaps more significant, how to interpret the results of today's Democratic primary -- which will reward precisely zero delegates.

Clinton, who plans a visit after the polls close, has trumpeted Florida's importance, especially since Obama walloped her Saturday in the South Carolina primary. She has consistently led in polls here and is being boosted by a get-out-the-vote effort coordinated by friends in organized labor.

"I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them, that I deeply care about their problems," the senator from New York told reporters Sunday before flying to the Sunshine State for three closed-door fundraisers. "They have all the problems of a fast-growing state with everything that represents."

Obama is downplaying Florida's significance, at least in the Democratic nominating fight. The state -- which introduced "butterfly ballot" and "hanging chad" into the nation's popular lexicon -- is once again expected to be a political battleground in the fall.

"All of us agreed not to campaign there," the senator from Illinois said Sunday on ABC News' "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." "So, you know, as I said before, when I tell people I'm going to do something or not do something, I try to stick to it. And that's what I'm going to do with respect to Florida."

The quasi-boycott has apparently done little, however, to dampen the enthusiasm of the state's Democrats. By Monday, nearly 450,000 absentee and early ballots had been cast -- more than four times the number four years ago -- though at least some of that interest may be tied to a hotly contested property-tax measure on the state ballot.

"That says something about the desire of Floridians to vote and make their voices heard," said Howard Wolfson, a top Clinton strategist. A non-event, scoffed Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe. (But the Obama camp couldn't resist inflating expectations for Clinton's showing. "She'll win by 40, 50, 60 points," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "She'll get the same number of delegates: Zero.")

Even as they disputed Florida's significance, both sides denied surreptitiously campaigning in violation of the pledge.

The Clinton campaign pointed out that fundraising behind closed doors was expressly permitted.

Strategists for Obama said his 60-second spot, which began airing last week, is part of a national TV buy, running on cable networks in 49 states besides Florida.

Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who is also on the Florida ballot, stayed out of the state and steered clear of the back-and-forth.

Democrats have the Florida Legislature to thank for their uncomfortable situation.

Frustrated over the enormous influence of smaller states, Republicans last year pushed through a bill establishing today's primary date, even though it ignored the voting guidelines set by the two major parties. In response, the Democratic National Committee voted to strip Florida of its delegates to the party's national nominating convention. The GOP punished Florida by taking away half its delegates.

Undeterred, the leading Republican presidential candidates have campaigned across the state virtually nonstop for the past nine days. Florida now promises to stamp one of them -- most likely Sen. John McCain of Arizona or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- as the favorite for the party's nomination.

But the no-campaign pledge, pushed by Democrats in earlier-voting states, rendered its ethnic enclaves and stucco suburbs off-limits to the party's presidential hopefuls.

Steve and Tracie Fitzgerald, a Florida couple in their 40s, had to settle for seeing former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani -- a Republican -- during a stop Sunday at Ron Jon Surf Shop in Cocoa Beach.

Steve, an independent, and Tracie, a Democrat, expressed disappointment at the absence of Democratic contenders. "People want their views known," Steve Fitzgerald said.

However, the eventual Democratic winner is expected to override the national party's action in time for this summer's nominating convention. That would enable Florida to seat its full complement of 210 delegates and 31 alternates -- and eliminate any hard feelings as the Democrats fight to carry the state in the fall.

"I've never seen a reporter standing in a cornfield in November saying, 'It all comes down to Iowa.' Nobody cares what happens in Iowa," said Joe Garcia, chairman of the Democratic Party in Miami-Dade County. "With a woman or an African American at the top of the ticket, show me another Southern state they're going to carry, except Florida. We're going to see a lot of them from the end of February on."

After losing badly to Barack Obama in South Carolina, Hillary Rodham Clinton simply switched locales and opponents Monday, campaigning in Hartford against President Bush.

It was a good choice.

Her standing-room audience of 1,000 in Hartford, where the only local elections that matter are Democratic primaries, wildly applauded each gibe at the Republican president.

"All of you know that tonight is a red-letter night in American history," Clinton said, smiling in anticipation of the coming applause line. "It is the last time George Bush will give the State of the Union address."

The gymnasium at the Learning Corridor, a magnet-school complex in a Latino neighborhood near Trinity College, rocked with applause for nearly 60 seconds.

"Next year," Clinton said, her smile broadening, "it'll be a Democratic president."

Clinton never mentioned Obama in a 90-minute stop in Hartford, where the Democratic town committee has endorsed Obama, and the mayor, Eddie A. Perez, and congressman, John Larson, are neutral.

Some of her supporters were pleased by the new tack, even though they were unsure if it represented a respite or a permanent change in the countdown to the more than 20 Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5.

Rep. Jason Bartlett of Bethel, co-chairman of the Clinton campaign in Connecticut, said no one wanted to see a continuation of the tensions on display last week in South Carolina between Clinton and Obama.

"I think that's true throughout the party," Bartlett said.

Clinton, who stopped in Hartford and Springfield, then flew to Washington for a Senate vote and the State of the Union, bounced on the balls of her feet Monday as she waited for Comptroller Nancy Wyman and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to finish their introductions.

She smiled and gestured to familiar faces in the audience as Blumenthal, who attended Yale Law School with Clinton and her husband, stressed her connections to Connecticut as a New York senator.

The event was billed as a town hall meeting on "Solutions for the American Economy," but her speech touched on a litany of Democratic issues: the economy, health care, the war in Iraq, and education.

A podium with a placard, "Solutions for the American Economy," disappeared during her introduction. For the next hour, she roamed a small stage, holding a wireless microphone.

Clinton returned repeatedly to the incumbent president, who is seen by his own party as a drag on the GOP in 2008.

"I'm sure that the president tonight will, as he has for the previous seven years, say that the state of our union is strong," Clinton said. "With all due respect, Mr. President, come out on the road with me."

Clinton said Americans are dispirited by years of stagnant wages, drift in Washington and stark inequities in the economy and tax code.

Wall Street managers "making $50 million a year should not pay a lower percentage than a teacher in Hartford making $50,000 a year," Clinton said.

"One thing that President Bush has never understood — the state of the union is not about a speech in Washington," Clinton said. "It is about the state of the lives of the American people."

Clinton spoke for nearly a half hour, took questions from the audience for about 20 minutes, and then lingered to sign autographs before leaving at 12:05 p.m. for an event at Springfield College.

She told one young questioner who asked about global warming that she would convene an international conference of greenhouse-gas producers.

Stephen Shapiro, 65, of Middletown, who wore a red AARP T-shirt, stood in the last row, waving for her attention.

"Sen. Clinton, what will you do to make drugs affordable to all Americans?" yelled Shapiro, part of a national AARP effort to question the presidential candidates.

"No. 1, let's give Medicare the right to negotiate drug prices," Clinton said.

Congress barred such negotiations when it authorized the Medicare D drug coverage program. She called the bar "a huge loophole that Republicans insisted on."

Shapiro said later her answer was inadequate.

Another questioner was a single mother who says she earns $45,000 a year and is uncertain how she will be able to afford college for her son.

Clinton said she would provide a $3,500 credit. She also has proposed expanding grant programs and forgiving college loans for graduates who go into teaching.

Jackie Jamsheed of West Hartford questioned her on economic stimulus proposals that would give taxpayers rebates.

Such spending would go to stores like Wal-Mart, which stock their shelves with goods from overseas, Jamsheed said.

"So, it seems like it is an economic stimulus package for China, not for us," Jamsheed said.

Jamsheed said later she was an enthusiastic Clinton supporter, though she won't be able to cast a vote for her next week. Jamsheed is a Republican.

In a presentation 10 days ago to the Republican National Committee, pollster Neil S. Newhouse painted a dark picture for the GOP, saying Democrats are favored by voters on a wide range of issues.

But he offered hope, since Bush will not be on the ballot and Clinton, whose disapproval ratings edge above 40 percent, very well could be.

That is the case that Obama's supporters in Connecticut tried to make Monday afternoon, arguing that Clinton's "electability" problems could jeopardize Democratic office-holders in marginal districts.

It's not an argument that concerns Democrats in every marginal district: One of those lawmakers is Bartlett, Clinton's co-chairman.

By MARK PAZNIOKAS, The Hartford Courant, January 29, 2008

California is among 24 states taking part in "Super Tuesday," the February 5 contests in which voters will choose nominees from the Democratic and Republican parties for the November presidential election.

Following are a few facts about California and its primary, the biggest prize in terms of delegates:

* California is the most populous state, with more than 15 million registered voters, and has the eighth-largest economy in the world. Candidates will have to abandon the face-to-face "retail" politics they practiced in small states like New Hampshire and Iowa and reach voters through advertising and news coverage.

* Polls show Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Clinton leading rival Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by an average of 9 percentage points. Among Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain leads Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney by an average of 6.5 percent.

* California sends 441 delegates to the Democratic National Convention, and 173 delegates on the Republican side, by far the most of any state voting on Super Tuesday. The majority of these delegates are allocated based on the winner in each of the state's 53 congressional districts.

* Polls close at 11:00 P.M. EST Wednesday. Voters have been able to cast ballots by mail since January 7.

* Homeowners in the state have been hit hard by the subprime mortgage crisis. California ranks second in the nation for foreclosure filings, with inland cities like San Bernardino and Stockton especially hard hit.

* Median household income in the state is $54,385, well above the national median of $44,334. About 12.9 percent of the population lived below the poverty line, roughly in line with the national figure. The median age is 35.5, younger than the national average.

Reuters, January 31, 2008

SPRINGFIELD - Hillary Clinton stumped yesterday in Massachusetts and Connecticut, a testament to how much more significant the two states will be to this year's nomination battle after moving their primaries to be part of Super Tuesday next week.

Clinton used her platforms - gymnasiums in Springfield and Hartford packed with energized voters - to criticize President Bush in advance of last night's State of the Union address.

She barely alluded to her heated struggle with Barack Obama, who trounced her on Saturday in South Carolina's primary, and in Springfield she ignored the endorsement Senator Edward M. Kennedy was bestowing upon the Illinois senator about the same hour in Washington.

Some Clinton faithful believe that the strident critiques Hillary and Bill Clinton have rained on Obama have backfired, and there are signs that the power couple will tone down their rhetoric. Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that everyone should "take a deep breath," and supporters have told the former president that he is foremost among those who need that deep breath.

Referring to the bright sun outside Springfield College's basketball arena, where the overflow crowd was listening to her speech on outdoor speakers, Clinton said, "The heavens are smiling on us because tonight will be the last time President Bush ever gives a State of the Union address."

A couple of hours earlier in Hartford, she said she expected Bush to deem the state of the union strong. "With all due respect, Mr. President, come out on the road with me," she said. "Sit at tables in diners and hear what's on America's minds."

A spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee called Clinton's comments "divisive rhetoric and political pandering."

In Springfield, Clinton also emphasized how historic it would be for her to be elected the first woman president, something she hasn't been dwelling on much in recent weeks. "I know what it's like to have to be at work and your baby wakes up sick," she said. "I have lived this and I know how hard parents today are working."

Bereft of support from Kennedy and fellow Senator John F. Kerry, who also endorsed Obama this month, Clinton did have a raft of local officials on hand, as well as three congressman - Richard Neal of Springfield, Jim McGovern of Worcester, and Stephen Lynch of South Boston.

She went out of her way to mention McGovern during her remarks because, she said, the support of the longtime Iraq war critic "honored" and "humbled" her.

Neal said in an interview that he invited Clinton to Springfield with the idea that it was a spot where she would get attention in three media markets - Springfield, Boston, and Hartford.

At one point over the weekend, it looked like Clinton would attend a fund-raiser held in her honor yesterday at the State Room in Boston. It included many of her prominent Massachusetts supporters and offered tickets between $100 and $1,000. But Clinton returned to Washington to attend Bush's State of the Union address.

The campaign said there were 2,000 people in the basketball arena in Springfield - about a quarter of which was closed off - and another 1,000 outside. The crowd greeted Clinton, who arrived an hour late, enthusiastically and gave her several standing ovations.

By Marcella Bombardieri, The Boston Globe, January 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Despite it being a showdown between the remaining two candidates, Thursday's Democratic debate was in marked contrast from last week's contentious face off.

Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are debating for the last time before the Super Tuesday contests next week.

In their opening remarks, both candidates praised each other while highlighting distinctions between the Democrats and the Republicans.

While they tried to point out the differences in their policies, they did it without the finger-pointing of last week.

Perhaps the biggest difference in their platforms is their stance on health care.

Clinton favors mandated individual health insurance coverage for all Americans. Obama proposes a national health insurance program for individuals who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs.

"I believe absolutely, passionately that we must have universal health care. It is a moral responsibility and a right for our country," Clinton said, adding that her plan is similar to that of former Sen. John Edwards, who dropped out of the race Wednesday.

His name came up frequently, as both candidates were fighting to pick up his supporters.

"It is true we've got a policy difference," said Obama. "What [people are] struggling with is they can't afford the health care, and so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it."

Thursday's event, sponsored by CNN, the Los Angeles Times and Politico.com, is the first debate without Edwards.

Obama said he thinks it's very important for to reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington, implying that Clinton does not. "I think that a lot of issues that both Sen. Clinton and I care about will not move forward unless we have increased the kinds of ethics proposal that I passed just last year -- some of the toughest since Watergate -- and that's something that John Edwards and I both talked about repeatedly in this campaign," he said. "That's why I don't take federal PAC and federal lobbyist money. That is a difference," he said.

Edwards had campaigned on the message that he was standing up for the little guy, the people who are not traditionally given a voice in Washington, and that he would do more to fight special interests.

Obama got laughs when asked about how he might counter Republican charges against "tax-and-spend liberal Democrats."

"Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument," he said.

Clinton drew cheers when she responded to the question about how a Clinton could promote change after decades of a Clinton or Bush in power.

"It did take a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush," she said.

On immigration, Obama said that although the issue might not "poll well," it is important to recognize that "the problems that workers are experiencing generally are not primarily caused by immigration."

"If we fix our legal immigration system, then I believe we will not have this problem of undocumented workers in this country," he said.

Clinton said "we have to fix this broken system."

"When the House of Representatives passed the most mean-spirited provision that said if you were to give any help whatsoever to someone here illegally you would commit a crime, I stood up and said that would have criminalized the Good Samaritan and Jesus Christ himself," she said. "I have been on the record against this mean-spiritedness."

With the two major candidates locked in a tight race for the party's nomination, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Hours before the debate, supporters from both sides were outside the Kodak Theatre -- the site of the debate -- waving banners and cheering on their candidate.

The event is the first Democratic debate since Obama's convincing victory Saturday in South Carolina. On Tuesday, Clinton won the Florida primary, a contest her campaign said helped the senator regain momentum even though it awarded no delegates.

Clinton and Obama have split victories in their parties' early-voting states: Obama has won in Iowa and South Carolina, and Clinton has won in New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan and Florida. But the Michigan and Florida contests awarded no delegates, and all major Democratic presidential candidates pledged to avoid campaigning in those states following national party penalties against them for moving up their contests so early.

Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the Michigan ballot.

The forum comes hours after the Obama campaign revealed it had raised $32 million in January from roughly 170,000 new donors. That amount will allow Obama to expand his television ad buys greatly in the 20-plus states holding primaries or caucuses Tuesday.

The Clinton campaign would not indicate how much money it had raised in the same time period.

Mike Gravel, the other Democratic presidential candidate still in the race, was not invited to participate in the debate because he did not meet certain criteria, including support in national polls. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted January 14-17, Gravel received less than 1 percent.

Clinton and Obama last faced off before the South Carolina primary. The debate was marked by numerous contentious exchanges, while Edwards struggled to get his voice heard.

The economy is likely to dominate Thursday's debate, as it did in the GOP debate the night before.

The debate may be slightly more restrained than last week's brutal showdown. Following her South Carolina loss, Clinton has largely steered clear of opportunities to take aim at Obama.

But in the hours leading up to the debate, Clinton's staffers ramped up recent accusations that Obama's team is engaged in negative campaigning.

Such accusations have dominated the Democratic presidential campaign in recent weeks, with Obama accusing both Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, of engaging in unfair attacks. The Clinton campaign has made similar charges against the Illinois senator, saying Obama's statements on the campaign trail, mailings and ads have distorted Clinton's record.

Obama is leading Clinton in the number of pledged delegates -- those awarded based on primary or caucus votes. Clinton has the edge when superdelegates are factored in. (Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials who are not obligated to support a particular candidate. They can change their decisions at any time leading up to the Democratic National Convention in August.)

To date, Obama has won an estimated 63 national convention delegates as a result of primary or caucus votes, while Clinton has earned an estimated 48 delegates. However, when superdelegates are included, Clinton has 232 overall delegates to Obama's 158.

With solid fundraising numbers and a nod from Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts this week, Obama will be making the claim he holds the front-runner title. But Clinton -- who has led in national surveys for much of the race -- will be making her case as well.

By Rebecca Sinderbrand, CNN, January 31, 2008

In the theater where Academy Awards are doled out by the handful, Sen. Barack Obama and Sen Hillary Clinton seem to be competing for an award of their own Thursday night --most congenial candidate.

Both made early plays for supporters of John Edwards, who bowed out of the race in a week that has seen record breaking fundraising, major endorsements, and the launch of dueling 22 state campaigns in advance of Super Tuesday.

But with some polls narrowing in major states, including California and New York and cantankerous exchanges in South Carolina, the candidates played nice, stuck to the issues and tried to carve out policy minor differences during a debate televised on CNN.

The candidates have spent much of their time debating immigration reform and health care.

"Ted Kennedy said he is confident that we will get universal health care with me as president," Obama said, adding that he would broadcast party negotiations over health care on C-Span. "I am committed to making sure that anyone in America who wants health care will get it."

CNN moderator asked Obama if his promise of open conversations about health care was a swipe at Clinton, but he said no.

"We have to regulate the health insurance industry differently, they have to cover everyone," Clinton said. "As Democrats we carry the banner of universal health care."

Obama raised a record $32 million in Jan. and added 224,00 new donors, according to an e-mail sent out to supporters. He also picked up this week endorsements from Sen. Ted Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, and the California-based United Healthcare Workers

Recent polls have shown Clinton leading in delegate-rich states, like New York which offers 232 and California, with 370. Obama, however, is narrowing the gap and is expected to do well in the South and win Illinois his home state.

By NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, Newsday, January 31, 2008

Students make coffee shop standing room only

With just one week to go before Super Tuesday and the Missouri primary, presidential campaigns are in a full swing effort to reach voters in critical states before time runs out. This down-to-the-wire operation brought Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Democratic candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, to St. Louis Monday afternoon to campaign for her mother in what was a rare occurrence for the younger Clinton.

Before a packed house at Kayak's Coffee, across the street from the University, the 27-year-old held a town hall-style question and answer session in which she responded to inquiries and concerns covering a wide variety of topics.

To open the event, Ms. Clinton took a question from a Washington University student concerning the rising costs of higher education.

"My mother wouldn't be where she is today without the educational she was able to receive," Ms. Clinton said. "She understands the difficulties and has a plan to change the system."

Ms. Clinton said that her mother, if elected, would double Pell Grant awards to $10,800 for both undergraduate and graduate students, give each student a $3,500 tax credit, and pledged to end the FAFSA paperwork system, offering an alternative way to apply for federal aid through federal income taxes returns.

The day-to-day battle for the nomination also came through in Ms. Clinton's language.

"We don't see past February 5," Ms. Clinton responded when asked about running mates. "On February 5 we'll look towards February 12."

Ms. Clinton's public appearances are a rather recent addition to her mother's embattled campaign, which suffered a significant loss to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the South Carolina Democratic primary on Saturday. Ms. Clinton has typically maintained a silent presence on the campaign trail, but has recently started a tour of universities to try to attract younger voters to Senator Clinton's cause, who have been a strength of the Obama campaign.

Ms. Clinton appeared at the University of Missouri-St. Louis earlier on Monday and this new direction was evident in her Wash. U. stop.

"So much of this campaign is to get young people to vote-people from our generation," said Ms. Clinton. "We need to emphasize the values that matter to us."

Washington University students who made the short trek to Kayak's Coffee for the session reacted positively to Ms. Clinton's visit, and some undecided voters, including freshman Ayla Karamustafa, said that Ms. Clinton's words may have strong influence on young voters in the days before Missouri's Super Tuesday primary.

"I think she answered questions as best as she could and she seemed pretty knowledgeable about everything. I'm glad that she took her time out to do this because I think it's going to affect a lot of people," said Karamustafa. "I was undecided before I came, and it's between Barack and Hillary for me. I'm still deciding but I would say right now that it's 51 [percent] for Hillary, 49 for Barack."

Sophomore Bobby Harvey, who currently favors Obama, said that he would not change his vote, but Chelsea Clinton's words made him more comfortable with the possibility of Senator Clinton winning the Democratic nomination.

"I was really impressed with her ability to speak about her mom's issues," said Harvey. "I also feel really comfortable now that if Hillary wins the candidacy, then I definitely feel strongly that I can support her."

In general, students felt that Ms. Clinton did a good job of empathizing with young voters.

"She definitely showed that she cared about us, that Hillary cared about us," said Harvey.

"She did a really good job answering questions," said sophomore Leah Blake, who is still an undecided voter. "It's good to see the Clinton campaign reaching out to young voters."

Some students did not sing similar praise for the question-answer session.

"She didn't actually address my question," said junior Ross Zeitlin, who asked about health care system benefits and the effects of Senator Clinton's health care plan on health care providers. "But I am still leaning toward Clinton."

In addition to the special focus on the importance of younger voters, Ms. Clinton fielded questions regarding the war in Iraq, environmental issues, the housing crisis, foreign policy, immigration and national security.

To tie into more recent trends, Ms. Clinton also addressed what role her father, former President Bill Clinton, plays in her mother's campaign.

"I don't think you should vote for my mom because of my dad," she said, answering a voter's question about her father's role in the election. "And I don't think you should vote against her because of my dad. I think you should judge her for her own merits."

Above all else, Ms. Clinton emphasized the importance of voting in the process.

"Part of being a good citizen means voting," she said. "This is your voice."



By Mark Dudley, Student Life, January 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES - The conventional political wisdom in delegate-rich California is that the roughly three million registered voters without a party affiliation are ripe for the picking by the Democratic candidates for president.

Democrats began allowing independents to participate in their party's presidential primary in 2004, and campaigns now see them - the fastest-growing group of registrants in California - as potentially pushing a candidate over the top in the primary on Feb. 5.

"We think that is a perfect target for us," Mitchell Schwartz, the California director for Senator Barack Obama's campaign, said of the pool of independent voters.

But the quirky ways of the state's independent voters combined with the cumbersome process for voting in the primary may make them far less relevant than expected.

"The whole effect of the participation and influence of the independent voter is a bit overblown in California," said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the California Field Poll.

In the 2004 presidential primary, out of 2.5 million independent residents registered to vote - their party affiliation is officially listed as "decline to state" - only 207,000 voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, or 8 percent of all votes cast that year, according to figures from the California secretary of state.

(Republicans only allow their own party members to vote; the state's American Independent Party also allows decline-to-state voters to cast ballots in its primary, but the party's presence is very small.)

Polling and party experts expect more decline-to-state voters to cast ballots in the Democratic contest on Feb. 5 because the primary comes earlier than in prior years and there is a dynamic race between Mr. Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runners nationally. Still, these voters do not offer the reliable support on which campaigns depend.

"The first thing is that nonpartisans as a group are occasional voters," Mr. DiCamillo said. "They are not as engaged in politics. They view the parties as being too partisan and migrated to nonpartisan."

It is also true that decline-to-state voters must be quite motivated - and knowledgeable - to cast a ballot in the Democratic primary. The voters must ask for a Democratic ballot at their polling station; otherwise, they are provided with a nonpartisan ballot that has statewide measures only.

And if they vote by mail, as a great many Californians do, these voters must request a Democratic ballot in writing.

"If you do nothing, you get a nonpartisan ballot," Mr. DiCamillo said. "That is a proactive step that is a hurdle."

County registrars are supposed to inform the independent voters that they have a right to a Democratic ballot, but each does so differently, leaving many voters with no idea they can participate in the primary.

"We do get people after an election saying, 'I wanted to vote a partisan ballot, and I got this nonpartisan ballot,' " said Steve Weir, the vice president of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.

Of the other 23 states with primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, nine have open primaries and three have semi-open ones. Each state has its own rules and nuances, but the process in most of them is far less complicated than in California.

Bruce E. Cain, a professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, said it required a lot of work for a campaign in California to make the independent voters important. A candidate needs "to target the decline-to-state voters, remind them that they can participate, and tell them how," Professor Cain said.

Both Obama and Clinton campaign officials said they were doing that, but that it was a complex battle in a place where, compared with a state like New Hampshire, voters were less informed about the ins and outs of the primary process.

"It's very hard, frankly," said Mr. Schwartz of the Obama campaign. "In an open primary like New Hampshire, especially, people know they can vote." He said the Democratic Party "should be doing a ton more" to reach out to the independents.

State Democratic Party officials said they did the best they could with a limited budget and competing interests. Separately from the party efforts, the Courage Campaign, a so-called 527 group, plans to call or e-mail 300,000 registered decline-to-state voters in California to remind them that they can vote Democratic.

Republican frontrunners John McCain and Mitt Romney are locked in a battle to win today's Florida primary and gain critical momentum ahead of next week's Super Tuesday elections.

Latest polls in the Sunshine State showed the pair in a tie, with Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee trailing behind.

The closeness of the fight was evident in the acrimonious nature of the last couple of days of campaigning, with McCain and Romney attacking one another at last-minute campaign rallies.

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The battle for the White House is hitting full throttle ahead of next week's 22-state "Super Tuesday" contests, but the February 5 nominating bonanza -- the biggest in in US history -- was unlikely to finalize party nominees.

For Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and surviving Republicans, close combat in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina is just a memory, as they launch week-long campaign blitzes.

Territory on offer ranges from liberal bastions like Massachusetts in the north to the deeply conservative southern states of Alabama and Georgia.

Also in play are voters from frozen state of Alaska to Arizona's parched deserts, along with anything-goes California on the US left coast.

Harried campaign chiefs face unprecedented challenges: multi-million dollar nationwide ad blitzes will drain campaign war chests and gruelling plane trips will keep candidates' nerves taut.

The blizzard of contests long had been seen as the day when Republican and Democratic nominations would be decided, but the races are so tight that coronations are unlikely.

At stake on the Democratic side will be 1,700 of the 4,049 delegates to the party's national convention this August in Denver, Colorado. A total of 2,025 are needed for the nomination.

Clinton and Obama are waging a tense contest, with former senator John Edwards hoping to pick up enough delegates to be kingmaker in the event of a deadlocked convention.

Further complicating the electoral equation are nearly 800 "superdelegates" -- unpledged party officials and luminaries who will have a vote in Denver without going through any popular selection process.

Republicans are competing Tuesday for more than 1,000 of the 1,191 delegates needed for the nomination at their convention in September in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Should Rudolph Giuliani not win Tuesday's Florida primary, the race will likely boil down to a two-man bout between Senator John McCain and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

"No one has tried to do this before. We are all in uncharted territory," Clinton said in Memphis, Tennessee Sunday.

Among Democrats, the "Super Tuesday" map appears to offer the former first lady a slim advantage over Obama, with whom she has split the first four contests.

She has a steady double-digit lead in polls in California, which has most delegates -- 370 -- up for grabs on Tuesday.

New York, her home Senate patch, is the second biggest prize with 232 delegates. New Jersey is just next door, and another key prize, Arkansas, is where husband ex-president Bill Clinton was governor.

Latest RealClearPolitics poll averages show Clinton ahead in New York and New Jersey by 22 percent and 18 percent respectively, and she heads national polls by 9.4 percent.

Obama, despite a landslide in Saturday's South Carolina primary, is downplaying expectations.

"The Clinton operation is a tough, well-honed political machine built up over the course of 20 years," he said.

"We have always been the underdogs in this campaign; we have always been the outsiders, the insurgent campaign."

Even so, Obama's camp is confident it will be in the driving seat by late on Super Tuesday.

"We believe it is unlikely that this race will be decided on February 5," said campaign manager David Plouffe in a memo, but forecast a rough split of delegates would help Obama beat Clinton in a race to the tape.

Obama has another disadvantage on February 5 -- his triumphs in Iowa and South Carolina were partly fueled by electric public appearances, and followers fired up by soaring speeches.

But now he has only eight days to cast his spell countrywide, and his magnetism may be diluted by television, where much of the campaign will be fought.

Had delegates in Clinton's powerbase states been doled out on a winner-take-all basis, the race may have been hers by next week.

But, under a labyrinthine Democratic system of partial proportional representation, candidates can gather small hauls of delegates even in states unfavorable to them.

Super Tuesday poses harsh questions for Republicans, struggling to finance campaigns from a core powerbase unimpessed with their choices, but their map is much simpler, with most states winner-take-all.

Obama is hoping to dominate in states like Alabama and Georgia with large black populations and has built a grass-roots movement, firing up students, independents and first-time voters.

Clinton hopes to gain an edge by driving women to the polls, and is popular among white-collar workers and the exploding Hispanic population -- especially in California.

AFP, January 29, 2008

I'm a Hillary cynic, so what am I doing standing out here in the cold, near the end of a block-long line down Vernon Street?

Because there's something more here than Bill's blathering and the right wing's misogynist obsession with Hillary Clinton. Standing here with my notebook, freezing fingers and moronic questions, I realize how much I've been missing.

Obama may be surging and Uncle Ted endorsing, but there's still something powerful going on out here with Hillary. Are we missing this? I have been.

Monday morning I was surround by hundreds of people, including Obama supporters, who asked me how I could be anyplace else than waiting on a chilly sidewalk, hoping to catch a glimpse and a few words from the candidate.

We're talking about an election where the next president will very likely be a woman or a black man, if the Democrats don't blow it. Hundreds of women reminded me Monday I'd better not sleep through history.

I met Lisa Levy, a 51-year-old lawyer who was driving to work Monday morning and took an unplanned detour over to the Learning Corridor at Trinity College when she heard on the radio that Clinton was speaking in Hartford.

"This is historic," she explained simply, words repeated to me by dozens of other people over the next two hours.

"I've been active in politics all my life. This is one of the most exciting years," said Phyllis K. Burns, a 79-year-old Hartford resident, who told me she was still undecided.

Kelly Krug, 28, of West Hartford, ducked out of work and got a picture of Clinton waving to the crowds as she arrived.

"I came just to see Hillary speak," Krug said. "I think she's a strong female."

I saw working moms, grandmothers, professional women, college kids and even a teacher who brought her students.

Michelle Mills, a flight attendant just off a plane, drove up from Derby. "She has paid her dues," Mills said, patiently answering my simplistic questions. "There's a lot of women here. I'm not surprised."

When the fire marshal shut the doors of the auditorium, hundreds of us still waiting in line shuttled into the cafeteria. Or rather it was me and what seemed like 250 women of all ages. At least none of them had heard my foolish pronouncements at work lately that I could "never" vote for Hillary Clinton for president.

Here were thoughtful people who deeply believe in and care about the first serious female contender for the presidency.

"I drove an hour and a half to wait an hour standing in the bitter cold," said Tess Foley of Monroe. "I am 2,000 percent behind Hillary Clinton. She is the single most prepared candidate."

I saw a woman crying and mothers who had taken their sons out of school to come and listen. George Jackson, a 65-year-old black man from Marlborough standing on a chair, leaned down and offered some man-to-man advice: It's time, he said, for "a lady to straighten this country out."

"This lady has been around," said Jackson, who runs a window-cleaning business. "She can endure."

Then, as we waited for Hillary and her Secret Service phalanx to pass through the cafeteria, I got to talking with Naomi Klein and Sally Gross of West Hartford, fast friends for 65 years and graduates of the old Weaver High School.

"There has been nothing like this ever before," said Gross, who is 82 and a Clinton supporter. "The whole thing is exciting."

"We've come a long way," Gross told me. "Why not?"

I'm not with Hillary yet, Sally. But no more cynicism.




By Rick Green, The Hartford Courant, January 29, 2008

LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) -- Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will duel for Super Tuesday votes Thursday night as the Democratic presidential hopefuls face off for the first time together minus former Sen. John Edwards.

The debate -- sponsored by CNN, the Los Angeles Times and Politico -- starts at 8 p.m. ET Thursday on CNN and CNN.com. CNN's Wolf Blitzer is the moderator.

The event is the first Democratic debate since Obama's convincing victory Saturday in South Carolina. On Tuesday, Clinton won the Florida primary, a contest her campaign said helped the senator regain momentum even though it awarded no delegates.

The forum at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood comes hours after the Obama campaign revealed it had raised $32 million in January from roughly 170,000 new donors. That amount will allow Obama to expand his television ad buys greatly in the 20-plus states holding primaries or caucuses Tuesday.

The Clinton campaign would not indicate how much money it had raised in the same time period.

Mike Gravel, the other Democratic presidential candidate still in the race, was not invited to participate in the debate because he did not meet certain criteria, including support in national polls. In a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted January 14-17, Gravel received less than 1 percent.

Edwards suspended his presidential run Wednesday in New Orleans, Louisiana, but he didn't endorse any candidate despite what aides described as furious lobbying campaigns by Obama and Clinton.

Thursday's debate may be slightly more restrained than last week's brutal showdown. Following her South Carolina loss, Clinton has largely steered clear of opportunities to take aim at Obama.

Former President Bill Clinton also has avoided criticizing his wife's rival after dominating headlines with his attacks in the days before the South Carolina vote.

The economy is likely to dominate Thursday's debate, as both candidates look to appeal to supporters of Edwards and his brand of economic populism.

Clinton and Obama have split victories in their parties' early-voting states: Obama has won in Iowa and South Carolina, and Clinton has won in New Hampshire, Nevada, Michigan and Florida. But the Michigan and Florida contests awarded no delegates, and all major Democratic presidential candidates pledged to avoid campaigning in those states following national party penalties against them for moving up their contests so early.

Clinton was the only major candidate to appear on the Michigan ballot.

Obama is leading Clinton in the number of pledged delegates -- those awarded based on primary or caucus votes. Clinton has the edge when superdelegates are factored in. (Superdelegates are party leaders and elected officials who are not obligated to support a particular candidate. They can change their decisions at any time leading up to the Democratic National Convention in August.)

To date, Obama has won an estimated 63 national convention delegates as a result of primary or caucus votes, while Clinton has earned an estimated 48 delegates. Clinton, however, has the overall lead in delegates -- 232 to 158 -- when superdelegates are included.

With solid fundraising numbers and a nod from Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts this week, Obama will be making the claim he holds the front-runner title. But Clinton -- who has led in national surveys for much of the race -- will be making her case as well.

By Rebecca Sinderbrand, CNN, January 31, 2008

With no clear front-running presidential nominee in either party, political scientists and analysts agree youth voter participation has had an increased impact in the primary season and has particularly affected the race for the Democratic ticket.

Youth voters are generally those individuals between the ages of 18 and 25, although the category is expanded in some cases to between 18 and 30, said several University of California professors.

"The basic idea is people in school, or just out of school, or beginning adult life," said Bruce Cain, executive director at the UC Washington Center of the age demographic that captures the youth group.

Youth voter participation in this election has been mostly attributed to the candidacy of Barack Obama, who gains much of his support from younger voters, said Jack Citrin, professor of political science at UC Berkeley.

"I think Obama's appeal to youth is on the basis of style and general appeal to idealism, change, something different," he said.

Obama has also been popular among younger voters because he has maintained a platform of being against the status quo, said Matthew Baum, associate professor of political science at UCLA.

"In any other year, Hillary Clinton would (have been) the most amazing thing. But because of Obama, the novelty of a candidate being female has been replaced by the novelty of the candidate being African American," Baum said.

Obama has also been seen by voters as being able to restore the idealism in the Democratic Party, which was not a focus of the politics in the 1990s, Cain said.

However, Cain also said the amount of youth support that led to Sen. Obama's win in the Iowa caucus has not yet been paralleled, although there is potential for such an occurrence in California because of the open primary system.

In general, Cain said, young voters are responsive to idealism and charisma in candidates.

In light of the Iowa caucus in which youth voter turnout was a significant factor contributing to Sen. Obama's victory, Sen. Clinton has made efforts to increase her appeal among younger voters.

Clinton traveled with younger voters before the New Hampshire primary. Recently, her daughter Chelsea Clinton has also campaigned by visiting several colleges, including UCLA.

Cain said these efforts have helped stabilize Sen. Clinton's campaign, and she was able to rally young women to support her before winning the New Hampshire primary.

Teddy Schwartz, president of Bruins for Hillary, said there has been an increase in the number of members since Chelsea Clinton's visit.

Citrin and Baum, however, both said that Sen. Clinton's recent efforts to reach out to younger voters will not have a significant impact overall.

"Her daughter is certainly an asset, but it's a marginal asset, because at the end of the day, people know Hillary Clinton, and they are going to make up their mind about her," Baum said.

On the Republican side, there has been significantly less involvement from young voters, said several UC professors.

Citrin said this is because the Republican race has not yet established clear front-runners.

The exception, Cain said, has been Ron Paul, who is not being perceived as a front-runner but has gained a lot of support among younger Republicans.

"It's because he has a very ideological perspective and he is No. 1 against the Iraq War and would pull back our troops, which is something that is very popular among younger conservatives," said Mark Stefanos, marketing director for Bruin Republicans.

Cain said that the reason for generally low participation rates for young voters is twofold.

First, young voters are generally less invested in political issues. Second, as a result of moving around frequently, yung voters might have to register multiple times, Cain said.

In this election however, youth voter turnout has exceeded previous trends.

"To date, in recent elections, we wouldn't say the youth vote has been critical or particularly targeted, but there has been potential in this election," Cain added.

Baum said that while the impact of young voters in the primaries is clear, it remains uncertain if their enthusiasm will translate into the general election.

"The more they come out, the more they'll be heard," Baum said.




By Neha Jaganathan, Daily Bruin, January 28, 2008

Clinton, Obama Aides Reach Out to Edwards Backers

FAJARDO, Puerto Rico -- As the race for the Democratic presidential nomination raged on in South Carolina and across the country this weekend, America's top trial lawyers became the focal point of a different aspect of the campaign at a seaside resort here.

At a kickoff reception for the lawyers' winter conference, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, slapped backs and clinked glasses poolside for hours. "I talked to everyone down there, including the waiters," he said as he headed for another reception.

Upstairs, at a mahogany-paneled martini bar, Sen. Barack Obama's finance director, Julianna Smoot, was huddled with a group of Florida attorneys whose hearts, if no longer their inner handicappers, were still with former senator John Edwards, the candidate they all called "Johnny."

With South Carolina primary returns showing Edwards a distant third, McAuliffe and Smoot both sensed an opportunity: Some of the Democratic Party's most prolific fundraisers were looking for a new candidate to get behind.

So in conference rooms, at the casino and by the pool, the Obama and Clinton finance officials engaged in what could only be described as a campaign within the campaign, this one targeting financial backers instead of voters.

Their efforts come at a critical time. While the two Democrats have each raised more than $100 million over the past year, they have now spent the vast majority of that money. They are just days from the mega-primaries scheduled for Feb. 5 and need to feed enormous field operations and a television advertising budget that is already consuming more than $2 million every day.

Clinton and Obama have recognized that this stage of the campaign will require a fresh team of bundlers -- supporters who can not only donate their own money but also gather scores of $2,300 checks from friends and colleagues. The logical place to turn is to their struggling -- and in some cases, vanquished -- rivals.

The delicate task of poaching top donors from other Democratic candidates actually began about two months ago, when it became increasingly clear that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson and Sens. Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr. would not be able to break through with voters.

Top fundraisers for Clinton and Obama took the names of key financial supporters from those campaigns, and they began some tentative appeals.

Michael Stratton, a Denver political consultant who had been a top fundraiser for Richardson, said he started getting calls before the New Hampshire primary. The first came from McAuliffe, who told him "we need you with us if Bill [Richardson] is going to get out," Stratton said.

A day later, Stratton heard from Thomas Hoog, a friend who had served as Gary Hart's chief of staff, and who now was helping recruit support for Obama. Hoog tried to paint the campaign as a rerun of the 1984 contest, with Obama taking on Hart's role as the young, fresh-thinking outsider. "This is new blood," Hoog told Stratton, conjuring memories of their work together for Hart. "Another time for change."

"I wasn't eager to go somewhere different," Stratton said. "But they were planting the seeds."

On Jan. 10, the day Richardson announced he was leaving the race, Stratton's phone rang again. It was Bill Clinton. They talked for several minutes, with Clinton emphasizing that Stratton could play a crucial role going into Feb. 5. "He said there was still a lot of money to be raised, and it would be a major factor in who prevails coming down the stretch here," Stratton said. The former president closed the deal. Stratton scheduled a Denver fundraiser for Hillary Clinton on Jan. 30, with her husband as the headliner.

WASHINGTON (AP) - So close, yet so far away - and so bitter.

Rival Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama came within a foot of each other just before President Bush's State of the Union speech Monday night and managed not to acknowledge each other, and certainly not touch.

Clinton, clad in scarlet, crossed the aisle between their seats on the House floor and reached out a hand to greet Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic icon whose endorsement she had courted only to lose it to Obama.

Kennedy shook her hand while Obama, wearing a dark suit and standing between the two, turned away.

The rivals then retreated to their seats, only the aisle and four senators between them.

It was the latest chapter in the increasingly nasty fight between the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination and capped a dramatic day.

Hours earlier, Obama received the endorsements of Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the brother and daughter, respectively, of President John F. Kennedy. They were joined by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., the senator's son.

The only Republican senator still running, John McCain of Arizona, skipped the address to campaign in Florida.

By Laurie Kellman, The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

CHICAGO (AP) - An indicted businessman who poured thousands of dollars into the campaigns of Barack Obama and other politicians was jailed Monday after prosecutors disclosed he received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke.

Real estate developer and fast-food entrepreneur Antoin "Tony" Rezko was arrested Monday at his home in Wilmette and held after his attorneys failed to dissuade Judge Amy J. St. Eve from revoking his $2 million bond.

"This defendant has played a shell game and I think misled the court about what his assets are," federal prosecutor Reid J. Schar said.

Rezko is charged with scheming to pressure companies seeking state business for kickbacks and campaign contributions.

His name has surfaced in the Democratic presidential race because of his ties to Obama, who ended up donating to charity thousands of dollars in campaign contributions connected to Rezko. During a South Carolina debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Obama of representing Rezko "in his slum landlord business" when Obama was a young Chicago lawyer.

Obama actually represented partners of Rezko's company in government-subsidized apartment rehabilitation projects, not Rezko himself. Obama says he did no more than five or six hours of work for the partners.

Rezko has contributed thousands of dollars to the campaigns of both Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich — neither of whom is accused of any wrongdoing.

Rezko is due to start trial Feb. 25 on charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and attempted extortion. He is charged separately with swindling the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in the sale of a pizza restaurant business.

Obama's name has not come up in connection with any of the corruption charges swirling around Rezko. Prosecutors indicate the source of Rezko's clout was somewhere within Blagojevich's administration.

Federal prosecutors say Rezko was deceptive in leading St. Eve to allow various relatives and friends to post their property to secure his bond while claiming he was broke and living off relatives' generosity.

An FBI affidavit said Rezko actually received $3.5 million from a Lebanon-based bank account of General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxembourg company owned by London-based Iraqi billionaire Adhmi Auchi. Rezko's attorney said Rezko has had business dealings with Auchi.

Forbes magazine listed Auchi in 2007 as the world's 279th richest man. He also has been convicted of fraud in France, the government said in a court filing seeking the warrant to arrest Rezko.

Prosecutors said in their filing that $3.5 million was wired into a fund maintained at a Chicago bank by attorneys handling Rezko's tangled finances. They said the money was later transferred into other accounts and disbursed within a week.

Some of the money was transferred directly to Rezko, some to a company he owned, some to his wife, Rita, and some to friends and relatives who had posted their homes to secure his bond, according to the filings. Rezko's legal bills also were paid with a portion of the money, they said.

A 62-acre parcel south of downtown Chicago has been described as Rezko's major asset. The judge did not require him to post it as part of his bond after he described it as not a liquid asset and of speculative value only. But the government said Rezko has since "transferred, restructured or sold" much of his interest in the property.

In one of several filings Monday, prosecutors said they have a cooperating informant who claims to have seen documents describing Rezko's transfer of "a significant portion of his 62-acre property" to General Mediterranean. The informant understood the transfer to be in exchange for General Mediterranean forgiving $20 million in debt, according to prosecutors.

St. Eve reminded Rezko that when she granted him bond, she had ordered him to keep her advised of any changes in the tract's ownership.

Defense attorney Joseph Duffy tried to take some of the blame himself, saying he may not have adequately explained to Rezko his obligations. St. Eve brushed that aside, saying Duffy was not in any way at fault.

Monday's hearing was confused at some points. Duffy told St. Eve that the $3.5 million payment from General Mediterranean had been a loan secured by Rezko's interest in the 62-acre parcel. A minute later, he interrupted the proceedings to say he had just been told that it was not.

"I am not convinced by what I am hearing today," St. Eve said.

She scheduled a hearing Tuesday for Rezko's lawyers to present any information that might persuade her to reinstate the bond.

By MIKE ROBINSON, The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

THE RACE: The presidential race for Democrats, Republicans according to USA Today/Gallup Poll

___

THE NUMBERS - DEMOCRATS

Hillary Rodham Clinton, 56 percent

Barack Obama, 28 percent

John Edwards, 11 percent

___

THE NUMBERS - REPUBLICANS

John McCain, 40 percent

Rudy Giuliani, 21 percent

Mitt Romney, 17 percent

Mike Huckabee, 11 percent

___

OF INTEREST: The Republican race, once seen as a Giuliani romp, is still wide open with only 48 percent of the voters surveyed saying they're certain to vote for their candidate - 45 percent said they could still change their mind. Twenty-one percent said they were certain to vote for McCain, compared to 11 percent for Giuliani. On the Democratic side, 70 percent said they had made up their minds compared to 25 percent who could still change their minds. Forty-five percent of Clinton supporters were certain to vote for her compared to 20 percent for Obama.

Thirty-five percent of Democratic voters said bringing new ideas to solve problems was the most important quality in a candidate and 33 percent said being able to get things done in Washington was most important. On both scores, Clinton bested Obama: 42 percent to 37 percent on new ideas and a whopping 71-17 on getting things done in Washington.

___

The USA Today/Gallup Poll was based on interviews Jan. 23-26 of 412 registered Republicans and 426 registered Democrats in New York and had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points.

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton relegated her chief Democratic rival to the rhetorical sidelines Monday and focused her criticism on President Bush, saying he had lost touch with the concerns of an anxious public.

In a speech to more than 1,000 people jammed in a gymnasium, Clinton did not refer to the fight with Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Her audience, which included an equal number listening in an adjoining room, roared with approval when the former first lady took note of the Republican president's dwindling time in office.

"Tonight is a red-letter night in American history," she said. "It is the last time George Bush will give the State of the Union. Next year it will be a Democratic president giving it."

Bush is isolated at the White House, Clinton said, inviting the president to join her in meeting the kind of people she has come across during her campaign. "Sit at tables at diners and hear what's on America's mind," she suggested.

"I have been in and out of the homes and work places and community centers across America. What they want to talk to me about is the insecurity they feel and the fears they are confronting," she said.

The competition between Clinton and Obama has grown increasingly testy heading into next week's enormous round of primaries. But at least on this day, Clinton took on Bush, using the State of the Union address to highlight her differences with the commander in chief.

Bush is certain, she said, to assert that the state of the nation is strong even though "we are sliding into a recession. We have as lot of concerns we need to deal with," including a mortgage crisis that is driving people from their homes.

In Clinton's estimation, Bush "has never understood is that the State of the Union is not about a speech in Washington. It is about the lives of the American people who feel they are moving toward the American dream."

The woeful housing market, she said, is evidence of the economic insecurity that millions of people are sensing - concerns she said are not registering in the White House.

"It is about people and will they be able to stay in their homes or will they lose their homes," said Clinton. "It is about where we as a nation will restore our leadership and our moral authority."

Clinton's scheduled included stops in Hartford and then Massachusetts before returning to Capitol Hill for Bush's final State of the Union address.

The senator also picked up the endorsement of Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who planned to introduce her at an appearance after Tuesday's primary vote. Last fall, Clinton and other Democratic candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in the state because it broke party rules by moving its contest ahead to Jan. 29 in an attempt to play a bigger role in the picking a nominee.

"Hillary will be a president who will take the voice of all Americans - and all Floridians - to the White House," according to his remarks, obtained in advanced of delivery by The Associated Press.

The Democratic National Committee has said it would refuse to seat the state's delegation at the party's presidential convention in August. It is expected that the Democratic nominee will try to reverse that decision because of Florida's crucial role in the general election. Clinton already is on record favoring that step.

By MIKE GLOVER, The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) - The stands of these 2008 presidential candidates on a selection of issues:

Democrats: New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama.

Republicans: Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

___

ABORTION: Support abortion rights?

Clinton: Yes.

Edwards: Yes.

Obama: Yes.

Giuliani: Yes.

Huckabee: No.

McCain: No.

Romney: No. (Previously supported abortion rights.)

___

ECONOMIC STIMULUS:

President Bush and House leaders worked out an agreement for a $150 billion package with $50 billion in corporate aid as well as tax rebates of up to $600 a worker or $1,200 a working couple, plus $300 a child.

Clinton: $110 billion stimulus, including $40 billion in tax rebates of $250 for low- and middle-income taxpayers.

Edwards: Early advocate of stimulus package. Called in December for up to $100 billion in spending to boost job creation, expand unemployment insurance to 500,000 more people, give more money to states for Medicaid and property tax stability, and assist homeowners facing foreclosure.

Obama: $250 rebates to low and middle-income earners and $250 bonuses to Social Security recipients.

Giuliani: Endorses Washington stimulus plan but says it should cut taxes more deeply. Early advocate of cutting corporate tax to 25 percent from 35 percent.

Huckabee: Supports Washington stimulus plan but questions "whose economy is going to be stimulated the most" if package is financed by foreign lenders and used to buy products made in China.

McCain: Cut corporate tax to 25 percent, let companies expense investments in equipment and technology in year of purchase instead of spread out.

Romney: $233 billion stimulus package includes $400 individual income tax rebates, cutting 10 percent income bracket to 7.5 percent. No rebates for low-income workers who pay no income tax. Cut corporate tax rate to 20 percent, provide tax incentives for investment in technology and equipment.

___

EDUCATION:

Clinton: $10 billion for universal preschool. Replace No Child Left Behind law. $10,000 higher-education scholarships per year of national service.

Edwards: Universal preschool for 4 year olds. Change or replace No Child Left Behind.

Obama: $18 billion plan for preschool, teacher pay, $4,000 college tax credit for community service.

Giuliani: Vouchers for school choice.

Huckabee: Give states more authority to run education.

McCain: Vouchers for school choice, more community-college aid.

Romney: Supports school choice and No Child Left Behind law.

___

GAY MARRIAGE: Prohibit it with constitutional amendment?

Clinton: No.

Edwards: No.

Obama: No.

Giuliani: No.

Huckabee: Yes.

McCain: No.

Romney: Yes.

___

GLOBAL WARMING:

Clinton: $150 billion, 10-year energy package for new fuel sources; backed stringent caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Edwards: $13 billion annual fund to double budget for efficiency and renewable energy, favors stringent caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama: $150 billion, 10-year program for "climate friendly" energy supplies, favors stringent caps on greenhouse gas emissions.

Giuliani: Agrees humans contribute to global warming, opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse gases. Consider expanding nuclear power and alternative energy to free nation's dependence on foreign oil.

Huckabee: Supports increase to 35 mpg fuel efficiency standard by 2020, and emission caps.

McCain: Led Senate effort to cap greenhouse gas emissions; favors tougher fuel efficiency.

Romney: Says tougher mileage standards are a burden on automakers. Opposes mandatory caps on greenhouse gases unless other countries take similar steps. Says answer is to free the country from dependence on foreign oil.

___

GUN CONTROL:

Clinton: Supports gun control.

Edwards: Supports gun control.

Obama: Supports gun control.

Giuliani: Backed federal gun control as mayor, now says states should decide.

Huckabee: Opposes gun controls; backs federal "right to carry" law requiring states to recognize other states' concealed weapons permits.

McCain: Opposed ban on assault-type weapons; favored background-check law for gun shows.

Romney: As governor, favored strict state gun control.

___

HEALTH INSURANCE:

Clinton: $110 billion a year for mandatory universal coverage in first term. Tax credits to make insurance more affordable. Raise taxes on wealthy.

Edwards: Up to $120 billion a year for mandatory universal coverage in first term. Tax credits for affordability. Raise taxes on wealthy.

Obama: No universal coverage mandate for adults but one for children. More than $65 billion a year to make universal coverage affordable. Raise taxes on wealthy.

Giuliani: Income tax deduction of $7,500 per taxpayer to defray insurance costs.

Huckabee: Spend more on prevention, let market and states expand insurance.

McCain: $2,500 tax credit per taxpayer to help pay for insurance.

Romney: Incentives for states to expand affordable coverage. As governor, signed law aimed at ensuring universal coverage.

___

IMMIGRATION:

Clinton: Voted for 2006 bill that proposed conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens; backed border fence.

Edwards: Supports path to citizenship for illegal aliens who speak English and meet other conditions.

Obama: Voted for 2006 bill that proposed conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens; backed border fence.

Giuliani: Open to legal status for illegal aliens who speak English and meet other conditions. Favors tamperproof immigrant ID cards.

Huckabee: Has favored allowing illegal aliens to apply for legal status if they pay penalties, get work permits, register. As governor, opposed banning state services for illegal aliens.

McCain: Sponsored 2006 bill that proposed conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Now says he would secure border first.

Romney: Opposes conditional path to citizenship for illegal aliens; once called that step reasonable. Backs fence and National Guard at border, and ID cards.

___

IRAQ:

Clinton: Opposed troop increase. No timetable for completing withdrawal. Voted for war.

Edwards: Take out 50,000 troops now; all combat troops out in 10 months. Said his vote for war was wrong.

Obama: Combat troops out in 16 months. Spoke against war at start.

Giuliani: Supported troop increase and prosecution of the war.

Huckabee: Now faults President Bush for not sending enough troops at the start.

McCain: Early critic of how the war was fought, backed troop increase, opposes scheduled pullout.

Romney: Supported troop increase and prosecution of the war.

___

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Clinton: Noncommittal on raising $97,500 income cap on payroll taxes. Proposes a federal match of up to $1,000 to help set up 401(k) plans.

Edwards: Subject the portion of income over about $200,000 to Social Security taxes.

Obama: Raising cap with unspecified "small adjustment" that would subject a portion of higher incomes to Social Security taxes.

Giuliani: Rules out tax increase to save Social Security.

McCain: Would consider "almost anything" in a compromise to save Social Security, yet rules out higher payroll taxes for now.

Huckabee: Higher benefits for people who delay retirement past 70. Let retirees choose to get benefits or a payment at death for heirs.

Romney: Higher taxes are "wrong way to go."

___

STEM CELL RESEARCH: Relax restrictions on federal financing:

Clinton: Yes.

Edwards: Yes.

Obama: Yes.

Giuliani: Yes.

Huckabee: No.

McCain: Yes.

Romney: Apparently, no. As governor, tried to stop legislation that encouraged expanded embryonic stem cell research of the kind opposed by Bush.

___

TAXES:

Republican candidates all favor making Bush's tax cuts, expiring in 2010, permanent. Democrats would let the tax cuts for the richest taxpayers expire.

Clinton: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and keep estate tax on them. Higher tax breaks for college.

Edwards: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains tax. $25 billion a year in tax cuts for non-wealthy, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for singles and $500 tax credit for families making up to $75,000.

Obama: Raise income taxes on wealthiest and their capital gains and dividends taxes. Raise corporate taxes. $80 billion in tax breaks mainly for poor workers and elderly, including tripling Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credit for larger families.

Giuliani: Cut corporate tax rate to 25 percent, eliminate estate tax, establish a permanent child tax credit.

Huckabee: Replace income and investment taxes with national sales tax, sheltering purchases up to poverty line.

McCain: Opposed some of Bush's tax cuts because they were not tied to spending cuts, now says the tax cuts should be permanent. Cut corporate tax rate to 25 percent.

Romney: Tax breaks to those earning less than $200,000, eliminating capital gains, interest and dividend taxes for most. Cut corporate tax to 20 percent.

By CALVIN WOODWARD, The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama gained a burst of momentum from his landslide victory in the South Carolina primary on Saturday and an expected endorsement today from Democratic Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. But now, the Illinois senator faces a monumental contest that does not play to his strengths.

In eight days, on Feb. 5, Obama and his principal rival, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, face off in the contest dubbed Super Tuesday, the biggest day of presidential primary voting in U.S. history. Twenty-two states hold Democratic primaries or caucuses that day, spanning political terrain from California to Massachusetts, from Latino communities in the West to majority-black cities in the East, a mix of states that includes some of the nation's most expensive television advertising markets.

Super Tuesday is a particular challenge for Obama, who trails Clinton in most national polls. Three of the biggest states voting -- New York, New Jersey and Connecticut -- are in Clinton's backyard; a fourth, Arkansas, was her home before her husband was elected president. Those states account for one-quarter of the delegates to be awarded that day.

In California, which holds the biggest cache of delegates, polls show Clinton has a commanding -- although narrowed -- lead over Obama.

Moreover, the multi-state field of Super Tuesday does not play to Obama's signature strength: his ability to win over voters in live town-hall settings, using his soaring oratory and personal charm. That worked for him in Iowa, where many voters met him personally more than once. In a national campaign, by contrast, most voters' only contact with Obama will be through advertising and surrogates.

Still, the Obama campaign has a strategy for countering Clinton's big-state advantage -- one built in part on the Democratic rules for how delegates are awarded.

Rather than a winner-take-all system, in which the candidate who gets the most votes in a state claims all the delegates, Democrats have elaborate rules that award delegates in proportion to each candidate's share of the vote.

That means even a Clinton stronghold like New Jersey may produce some delegates for Obama -- and it explains why Obama visited Jersey City this month, weeks before New Jersey was set to vote, where a crowd of about 4,500 lined up to hear him.

Despite early predictions that the primary contest would be resolved by Feb. 5, both the Clinton and Obama campaigns now assume that neither candidate will lock up the nomination that day. Even a Clinton strategist predicts that the two will emerge with very close delegate counts.

In all, nearly 1,700 delegates will be awarded on Super Tuesday, a big boost toward the 2,025 needed to clinch the Democratic nomination. California will award 370 delegates that day, or about 22% of the delegates at stake. Republicans will hold their own nominating contests Feb. 5, most in the states where Democrats are voting.

The last two days have strengthened Obama's hand.

His 28-point victory margin over Clinton on Saturday in South Carolina was far wider than most predicted, giving Obama energy and new funds. His campaign raised $500,000 through its website in the hour after the South Carolina polls closed, according to a spokesman. Obama carried 55% of the vote in South Carolina, compared to 27% for Clinton and 18% for John Edwards.

On his way to winning South Carolina, Obama drew support from about 80% of African American voters, exit polls showed. That leaves him positioned to do well Feb. 5 in states such as Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, which have large populations of African American Democrats.

The biggest prize among these states will be Georgia, where blacks could make up more than 40% of the Democratic primary vote, and 87 delegates are at stake. Obama has been endorsed by Atlanta's black mayor, Shirley Franklin, and recent polls show he has an edge over Clinton in the state.

Obama argued Sunday that his South Carolina victory, in which he won about a quarter of white voters, showed that he appeals to all races. While some think that "if you get black votes, you can't get white votes," his success in South Carolina proved that untrue, Obama told a crowd of more than 9,000 at the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Kennedy, the Massachusetts senator and one of the Democratic Party's most senior figures, will campaign for Obama and help him shore up support among Latino voters, said someone close to the endorsement announcement.

Latino voters are a mainstay of Clinton's base, and they have a large presence in California, Arizona and several other states that vote Feb. 5. The Obama campaign believes that Kennedy will carry influence among Latinos in part because of his prominent role in calling for an overhaul of immigration laws that includes a path to citizenship for undocumented workers.

Kennedy is expected to endorse Obama at a rally at American University in Washington. News of Kennedy's decision came the day that his niece, Caroline, backed Obama in a New York Times opinion article in which she said Obama could inspire Americans as did her father, President Kennedy. Caroline Kennedy is scheduled to appear at today's rally as well.

Obama already had a leg up on the third-largest delegate prize of Super Tuesday: his home state of Illinois. And he has built organizations in the six states that are holding caucuses rather than primaries: Alaska, North Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, Kansas and Idaho. The caucus format, which requires voters to attend meetings to express support for their candidate, plays to the Obama campaign's strength in grass-roots organizing that it honed in the Iowa caucuses.

A Clinton advisor, who asked not to be named when discussing campaign strategy, conceded Obama's strength in the caucus states but said that far fewer delegates were to be had there, compared to the populous states that form Clinton's base.

Still, with a visit to Florida, Clinton signaled Sunday that she is serious about gathering all possible delegates for the nomination fight.

The Democratic National Committee last year said it would not seat delegates from Florida as punishment for the state's decision to leapfrog other states and set its primary election earlier in the calendar than party rules allowed. Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign there.

Florida's election will proceed Tuesday, and Clinton anticipates winning. On Sunday, she repeated her call for the party to revoke its punishment and seat Florida's delegates at the national nominating convention this summer.

"I'm going to try to seat the Florida delegates," Clinton said at a news conference in Tennessee. "I've said that the people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a president for the Democratic Party."

Clinton later flew to Florida for three fundraising events and promised to return Tuesday night after the votes are counted. "I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them, that I deeply care about their problems," she said at the news conference.

While her words and fundraising trip were bound to attract media attention in Florida, Clinton was not scheduled to take part in campaign rallies in the state, sticking to a pledge that she and other Democratic candidates made not to publicly campaign there.

Obama's campaign cast the Florida race as meaningless. "If the Clinton campaign's Southern strength rests on the outcome in a state where they're the only ones competing, that should give Democrats deep pause," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.

In California, Clinton has led in the polls from the beginning, but her margin has narrowed. In October, the Field Poll found her ahead by 25 points; in the most recent Field Poll, the margin shrank to 12 points.

Clinton's strongest groups form the bulwark of the state's Democratic party: women, lower-income people and Latinos. African Americans are strong for Obama, but they represent only 7% of the electorate, according to the Field Poll.

Endorsed in California by Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Clinton is campaigning as the establishment candidate. But with Kennedy's expected endorsement of Obama, it's clear the political establishment isn't ready to fall in behind one candidate yet.



By Janet Hook, Los Angeles Times, January 28, 2008

By Vaughn Ververs, CBS News, January 28, 2008

Chelsea Clinton used a mix of humor and serious political talk delivered in a conversational style to woo supporters for the Democratic presidential campaign of her mother, U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, during a Cape Girardeau campaign stop.

Clinton drew an overflow audience of more than 130 to Grace Cafe in Cape Girardeau. Nearly half those attending were forced to stand throughout the event, which took a little more than an hour and addressed audience questions ranging from education and health care to immigration and the war in Iraq.

Early in the event Clinton, 27, stepped away from her microphone and went outside, where about 18 supporters of Republican U.S. Rep. Ron Paul had gathered to promote their presidential candidate. She invited the Paul supporters inside to ask questions and politely asked them to be quiet enough to allow those inside to hear the questions and her answers.

"I invited them in, but they didn't want to come," Clinton said when she returned to the microphone.

Of the crowd, more than half raised their hands when asked if they were students at Southeast Missouri State University. Clinton campaign workers are bringing Chelsea Clinton to similar events in several of the 20 states, including Missouri, that will hold primaries or caucuses Feb. 5.

In the most recent Missouri poll, taken last week by Research 2000 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sen. Clinton held a double-digit lead over her closest rival, U.S. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, with former U.S. senator John Edwards of North Carolina trailing.

It was Chelsea Clinton's first visit to Cape Girardeau. She did not accompany her mother and father, then-president Bill Clinton, when they kicked off the 1996 fall campaign season with a bus tour that began in Cape Girardeau.

During the course of her talk, Clinton defended her mother's positions without engaging in any sharp attacks either on Sen. Clinton's Democratic rivals or any Republican by name.

One of the early questioners asked for Clinton's feelings on the constant attacks made on her parents from the right. When the differences are over policy, she said she understands that people are passionate about politics. But when the attacks are personal, she said, she ignores them. "I don't have time to get upset about all the things people say about my parents that aren't true."

At the end of the event, Clinton urged all those in the room, especially the younger voters, to take part in the primaries. She noted that many pundits have professed surprise at the energy shown by voters in their 20s, who traditionally have the lowest turnout rates of any group.

"Please participate and please have your voices heard," she said. "There is a lot of hype about young people participating, and I hope they are right."

As she waited for Clinton, Jessica Loos, a Southeast social studies and education major, sat with Kim Traedey and Donnie Rodgers. Loos, who said she considers herself a Republican, said it would take a strong stand on education issues for her to consider a Democrat.

The federal No Child Left Behind Act, for example, needs to be reformed or scrapped, Loos said. Higher pay for teachers is also a priority, she said. And when she asked Clinton that question, the reply clearly matched her views.

Clinton said the federal measure needs to be fully funded and changed to give states more freedom while making sure schools are accountable for each child's progress, not the progress of a school as a whole. Incentives for teachers to take jobs in underserved areas or to provide more advanced education are part of Sen. Clinton's plan, her daughter said, adding too much emphasis on testing isn't serving education.

"You don't want to just have little test takers in this country," Clinton said.

She also drew cheers from the student-heavy crowd when she said her mother intends to double the size of Pell grants and devise a way to forgive student loans for people going into teaching, health care or other public service professions, such as police officers.

In explaining her mother's health-care plan, Clinton said it is designed to bring people into the regular insurance market. For those who can afford it, the plan available to federal employees will be opened up for purchase. For those who cannot, she said, subsidies would help cover the cost or they would be enrolled in a Medicaid-type plan.

On foreign policy issues, Clinton repeated her mother's pledge to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days of taking office. And, on other foreign policy issues, she said her mother "won't wait to be inaugurated to declare two things: One, that the era of cowboy diplomacy is over; and two, we are back in the business of coopering with the world."

The Paul supporters were out in force more than an hour before Clinton arrived at Grace Cafe. For Matthew Gibson, a Southeast student, Paul is the candidate "saying things that are much more historically accurate, while others are sticking to rhetoric."

Clinton left without speaking to reporters. She is traveling with Emily Hawkins, director of youth outreach for the Clinton campaign, who said the coffee-shop and student union venues chosen for Chelsea Clinton are designed to put her with her peers. Many of the college students and recent graduates are close to her age and remember the 12-year-old who went to the White House with her parents in 1993, Hawkins said.

"We have only been doing this for the last couple of weeks," Hawkins said. "It makes the campaign more accessible to young people."

By Rudi Keller, Southeast Missourian, January 28, 2008

LOS ANGELES -- The latest poll out of California has Sen. John McCain vaulting into a sizable lead over the rest of the Republican presidential field while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) maintains a hefty margin on the Democratic side.

The 39 percent showing for McCain, among likely primary voters in the Los Angeles Times/CNN/Politico survey, is nearly twice what the same poll showed for the Arizona senator on Jan. 15, before he racked up primary wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He now leads former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney by 13 points two weeks ahead of the state's Feb. 5 vote.

The McCain surge appears all the more impressive because California's GOP primary will be restricted, as was the polling, to registered Republicans -- shutting out the independents who have so helped McCain elsewhere. But the Arizona senator runs about evenly with Romney - 32 percent to 28 percent - among the two-thirds of California Republicans who call themselves conservative, while running up powerful numbers (50 percent to Romney's 15 percent) among those identifying themselves as moderate or liberal.

Clinton led the Democratic field with 49 percent to 32 percent for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and 11 percent for former senator John Edwards (N.C.). The gross numbers show little change from the poll two weeks earlier but with choices more firmly held.

Clinton's strongest support was with registered Democrats, all women (including a 20-point lead among those with a college degree, a category Obama formerly led) the elderly and Hispanics. Obama's draw mirrored the results in South Carolina: strong among African American voters and winning about a quarter of the white vote. The poll shows Clinton ahead everywhere in the state except the San Francisco Bay Area, where Obama runs about even. He has reversed Clinton's once-strong lead among independents, and now leads 41 percent to 28 percent.

The poll was taken last Wednesday through Sunday, and so only one day's sample could reflect any impact from Obama's strong win in South Carolina on Saturday.

If the Obama campaign wants to take advantage of that win, however, it would do well to make haste. California allows voting by mail, and as many as 50 percent of primary voters are expected to cast absentee ballots. One in five Republicans had already done so when pollsters called. Among this group, McCain led Romney 39 percent to 35 percent -- about even, given the sample size.

Democratic absentees were going to Clinton over Obama 53 percent to 30 percent. Among those who plan to vote in person, her lead was eight points.

By Karl Vick, The Washington Post, January 28, 2008

It's starting to feel a bit like 1992 again. A Bush is in the White House, the economy is a mess, and there's a candidate who, in the view of a number of observers, is running on a message of hope, of moving past partisan differences, that resembles Bill Clinton's campaign 16 years ago.

Now, I'm not sure that's a fair characterization of the 1992 Clinton campaign, which had a strong streak of populism, beginning with a speech in which Mr. Clinton described the 1980s as a "gilded age of greed." Still, to the extent that Barack Obama 2008 does sound like Bill Clinton 1992, here's my question: Has everyone forgotten what happened after the 1992 election?

Let's review the sad tale, starting with the politics.

Whatever hopes people might have had that Mr. Clinton would usher in a new era of national unity were quickly dashed. Within just a few months the country was wracked by the bitter partisanship Mr. Obama has decried.

This bitter partisanship wasn't the result of anything the Clintons did. Instead, from Day 1 they faced an all-out assault from conservatives determined to use any means at hand to discredit a Democratic president.

For those who are reaching for their smelling salts because Democratic candidates are saying slightly critical things about each other, it's worth revisiting those years, simply to get a sense of what dirty politics really looks like.

No accusation was considered too outlandish: a group supported by Jerry Falwell put out a film suggesting that the Clintons had arranged for the murder of an associate, and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page repeatedly hinted that Bill Clinton might have been in cahoots with a drug smuggler.

So what good did Mr. Clinton's message of inclusiveness do him?

Meanwhile, though Mr. Clinton may not have run as postpartisan a campaign as legend has it, he did avoid some conflict by being strategically vague about policy. In particular, he promised health care reform, but left the business of producing an actual plan until after the election.

This turned out to be a disaster. Much has been written about the process by which the Clinton health care plan was put together: it was too secretive, too top-down, too politically tone-deaf. Above all, however, it was too slow. Mr. Clinton didn't deliver legislation to Congress until Nov. 20, 1993 - by which time the momentum from his electoral victory had evaporated, and opponents had had plenty of time to organize against him.

The failure of health care reform, in turn, doomed the Clinton presidency to second-rank status. The government was well run (something we've learned to appreciate now that we've seen what a badly run government looks like), but - as Mr. Obama correctly says - there was no change in the country's fundamental trajectory.

So what are the lessons for today's Democrats?

First, those who don't want to nominate Hillary Clinton because they don't want to return to the nastiness of the 1990s - a sizable group, at least in the punditocracy - are deluding themselves. Any Democrat who makes it to the White House can expect the same treatment: an unending procession of wild charges and fake scandals, dutifully given credence by major media organizations that somehow can't bring themselves to declare the accusations unequivocally false (at least not on Page 1).

The point is that while there are valid reasons one might support Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton, the desire to avoid unpleasantness isn't one of them.

Second, the policy proposals candidates run on matter.

I have colleagues who tell me that Mr. Obama's rejection of health insurance mandates - which are an essential element of any workable plan for universal coverage - doesn't really matter, because by the time health care reform gets through Congress it will be very different from the president's initial proposal anyway. But this misses the lesson of the Clinton failure: if the next president doesn't arrive with a plan that is broadly workable in outline, by the time the thing gets fixed the window of opportunity may well have passed.

My sense is that the fight for the Democratic nomination has gotten terribly off track. The blame is widely shared. Yes, Bill Clinton has been somewhat boorish (though I can't make sense of the claims that he's somehow breaking unwritten rules, which seem to have been newly created for the occasion). But many Obama supporters also seem far too ready to demonize their opponents.

What the Democrats should do is get back to talking about issues - a focus on issues has been the great contribution of John Edwards to this campaign - and about who is best prepared to push their agenda forward. Otherwise, even if a Democrat wins the general election, it will be 1992 all over again. And that would be a bad thing.

While many of her family members have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for President of the United States, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, a former Lieutenant Governor for the state of Maryland, is endorsing Sen. Hillary Clinton.

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision, but I have made a different choice," said Townsend, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy.

On Monday, her uncle, Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, and cousin Caroline, the daughter of John F. Kennedy, announced their endorsement of Obama. Along side the two relatives was Kathleen's brother, Patrick.

"As a woman, leader and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president," said Townsend. "At this moment when so much is at stake at home and overseas, I urge our fellow Americans to support Hillary Clinton. That is why my brother Bobby, my sister Kerry, and I are supporting Hillary Clinton."

Two years ago, Townsend's mother, Ethel Kennedy, referred to Mr. Obama in an interview as "our next president" and likened him to her late husband.

Trans World News, January 28, 2008

Dem Foes Come Within A Foot Of Each Other At State Of The Union Speech, But Don't Speak.

So close, yet so far away - and so bitter.

Rival Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama came within a foot of each other just before President Bush's State of the Union speech Monday night and managed not to acknowledge each other, and certainly not touch.

Clinton, clad in scarlet, crossed the aisle between their seats on the House floor. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Democratic icon who had endorsed Obama earlier in the day over Clinton, reached out his hand when she came close.

She took it; they shook. Meanwhile, Obama, dressed in a dark suit, had turned away.

The rivals then retreated to their seats, only the aisle and four senators between them.

It was the latest chapter in the increasingly nasty fight between the two leading candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination and capped a dramatic day.

Hours earlier, Obama received the endorsements of Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy, the brother and daughter, respectively, of President John F. Kennedy. They were joined by Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., the senator's son.

The only Republican senator still running, John McCain of Arizona, skipped the address to campaign in Florida.




The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Many of the Democratic members of Congress convening for President Bush's final State of the Union address tonight have already weighed in on his replacement.

Of the Democratic congressional endorsements, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York leads the remaining candidates competing for their party's nomination with 79 viable endorsements. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois is in second with 59, and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina follows with 16.

Democratic congressional endorsements play an important role in a candidate's ability to secure the party's nomination, beyond any influence they might have with voters. Each Democratic member of Congress gets one vote at the party's national convention in Denver this August, where the official nominee is elected. These are "superdelegate" votes - independent of their home state's primary or caucus outcomes, which result in the distribution of "pledged" delegates.

To win the nomination, a candidate needs 2,025 of the 4,049 available votes at the convention. There are 286 Democratic members of Congress, including territories. Of those, only 268- about 7 percent of the total convention vote - will have a vote at this year's convention, because Florida and Michigan have lost their seats due to violations of Democratic Party primary scheduling rules.

Though there is usually a presumptive nominee by each party's conventions at the end of the summer, it's possible the tight races between the candidates might come down to delegate counts this year.

On the Republican side, John McCain leads with 38 congressional endorsements, though GOP members of Congress do not get to vote at their party's convention this summer.

Some notable endorsements for Sen. Clinton include Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Tom Lantos, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Both are prominent members of the California congressional delegation, where the New York senator is looking to capture many of the state's 370 delegates on Super Tuesday, February 5.

Sen. Obama has received the backing of both Massachusetts senators, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. These two prominent members of the Senate could help Obama secure many of the state's 93 delegates a week from Tuesday as well.

Former Sen. Edwards, who has pledged to stay in the race until a nominee is selected at the convention, has the support of the majority of his home state of North Carolina's Democratic congressional delegation. He also has the backing of Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and Rep. James Oberstar of Minnesota, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Next Tuesday, the Democratic candidates will compete for 1,681 pledged delegates across the country, which will help determine the eventual nominee in August.

Adam P. Levy, CNN, January 28, 2008

(CNN) - Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton ignored Monday's Kennedy family endorsements for rival Barack Obama, taking aim instead at President Bush and his final State of the Union address.

"The heavens may be smiling on us," Clinton told a group of supporters in Springfield, Massachusetts. "Tonight will be the last time George Bush ever gives a State of the Union speech. It has been a long eight years, hasn't it?"

The New York senator also slipped in a jab at Vice President Dick Cheney saying, "When the Vice President shot that guy in the face, I thought that was it, what more can happen?"

The official Democratic response to Monday's State of the Union Address will be given by Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, but Clinton is expected to provide her own response shortly after Sebelius.

By Mike Roselli and Emily Sherman, CNN, January 28, 2008

Now that Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards have redirected their vote-getting and money-raising operations to the 22 states, 75 media markets and nearly 1,700 delegates up for grabs on February 5, otherwise known as Super Tuesday, one overriding reality guides their thinking - and it's buried way down in the weeds of the Democratic Party's road rules.

The rule is known as 13-B. And it states:

"States shall allocate district level delegates and alternates in proportion to their percentage of the primary or caucus vote won in that district, except that preferences falling below a 15 percent threshold shall not be awarded any delegates."

Translated into English, Rule 13-B means that any candidate who gets more than 15% of the vote in any primary will win convention delegates in direct proportion to his or her percentage of the popular vote.

Translated once more - and, this time, into harder-headed politics - it means that if they can stay in the race, both Obama and Clinton will continue to rack up convention delegates through the spring, regardless of who comes in first in each state. A second-place finish still gets you delegates. Which means that for either candidate to secure the 2,025 delegates needed to capture the nomination could take much longer than either campaign has bargained for.

Under Rule 13-B, it is possible that Clinton and Obama (and Edwards if he can stay competitive) simply carve Super Tuesday's nearly 1,700 delegates up three ways. With delegate-rich states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Illinois up for grabs, that is easy to imagine. Or Clinton and Obama could split the delegate haul in roughly equal fashion. If either of those things happen, the unprecedented national primary unfolding on February 5 won't determine much of anything at all. Except that the race will go on. And every delegate up for grabs after that becomes even more valuable to all sides.

Perhaps the most important thing about Rule 13-B is that it has never really been tested before. Party officials approved the rule only in 1988, after Jesse Jackson and Michael Dukakis fought a bruising five-month battle for the nomination. Dukakis led the entire time, but Jackson did well, winning nearly 1,000 delegates along the way. But in a few key states, Jackson was shut out of any delegates by rules that permitted allocation on a winner-take-all basis. In exchange for supporting Dukakis in the fall, Jackson wanted those old-fashioned primaries eliminated and replaced with proportional-allocation rules. Naturally, Dukakis agreed.

But in the primary campaigns since 1988, Democratic nominees have wrapped up their races with relative ease early on, meaning the proportional rule - and the full implications that come with a long, closely fought, three- or two-person race - have never been taken out for a drive. "We haven't seen anything like this," says Tad Devine, who hammered out 13-B in 1988 with his counterpart from the Jackson campaign (party rules maven Harold Ickes, who now works for Clinton). "We have always theorized about it, but it will be tested for the first time. Both candidates can keep collecting delegates for some time."

From here on out, Rule 13-B is what distinguishes the Democratic race from its Republican counterpart. The G.O.P. primaries are by and large winner-take-all affairs, expressly designed to winnow the field and produce a healthy front-runner and eliminate chaos. But in the Democratic contest, winnowing isn't part of the design; something closer to chaos is. Racking up delegates creates powerful leverage even for a second-place finisher. It gives an also-ran powerful cards to play at the convention for speaking rights, for rules changes - even a place on the ticket. Jackson, working without Rule 13-B 20 years ago, tried to leverage his delegates into all of those things.

And so while, yes, next week's 22-state contest could produce a clear front-runner and the momentum needed to lock up the nomination quickly, it is much more likely, thanks to Rule 13-B, that the fight will go on to all the other states. "If someone gets ahead, this whole thing takes care of itself," says a Clinton delegate hunter put it, "but if you have a lengthy and contested fight, securing the nomination becomes a real challenge."

Both camps realize that the way the delegates are allocated could mean that neither side captures a clear majority before April or even May. That is why both campaigns have sophisticated operations working behind the scenes trying to court and capture the nearly 800 super-delegates, convention officials (including all sorts of current and former elected officials) who get to vote on the nomination but are not pledged to any candidate. These boiler-room operations generate regular telephone calls from the candidates seeking support and pressure from donors to get behind one candidate or another, as well as discussion of possible jobs in a future Administration. The party created super-delegates after the 1980 election before Rule 13-B to prevent just the sort of confusion that could now unfold in the Democratic race.

Various estimates hold that Clinton is running ahead of Obama in the super-delegate sweepstakes, although they can technically change their allegiance even after they have pledged it. Devine, perhaps the party's leading expert on delegates, noted, "Super-delegates exist to prove some place for a nominating majority to coalesce outside the nominating process." But as this year has already shown, elections don't always work out the way party officials had planned.

By Michael Duffy and Rani Molla, Times, January 28, 2008

It was 15 years ago, Tuesday, that President Clinton rolled out the policy that came to be known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which relaxed the long-standing bar against gay men and women serving in the U.S. military. While the move was initially hailed as progress for the rights of gays in the military, today many see it as a liability.

Her Navy career had been "relatively stress-free" before "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" took effect, says Joan Darrah, a retired captain, and a lesbian, who served in various intelligence billets from 1972 to 2002. She kept her sexual orientation secret during her career, but that denial took its toll after "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" led to increased focus on homosexuality in the ranks. She recalls having to administer a survey on the topic to 250 subordinates in the wake of the new policy. "We all sat down taking this survey asking, 'Do you know a gay person, and, if you did, what would you do?' " Dannah recalls. "I was physically sick after I did it - I went into the bathroom and threw up because of the stress of standing in front of the command and saying, 'We're now doing a survey about gays in the military.' "

The issue exploded during Clinton's first week as President, triggered by those in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill opposed to his campaign pledge to reverse an executive order barring gays and lesbians from serving. "The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status," Clinton said at the time. "And I believe they should not."

While the phrase "don't ask, don't tell" wasn't used at that January 29, 1993, press conference, that's what everyone soon began calling the policy. It boiled down to this: the government would no longer "ask" recruits if they were gay, and so long as military personnel didn't "tell" anyone of their sexual preference - and didn't engage in homosexual acts - they were free to serve. But, by the end of 1993, opponents of the change, led by Georgia Democrat Sam Nunn, who chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee, succeeded in writing into law the ban on openly gay men and lesbians in uniform. Barring the pre-enlistment question about homosexuality "was the only compromise Congress let Clinton get away with," says Elaine Donnelly, president of the non-profit Center for Military Readiness which supports continuing the ban. "The law respects the power of sexuality and the normal human desire for modesty in sexual matters."

Writing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" into law meant that no new President can eliminate the ban without first convincing a majority of Congress to go along - a far higher hurdle than Clinton faced. All the Democratic candidates favor lifting the ban; the G.O.P. candidates support keeping it. "I think President Clinton meant well, but when he set out to implement his vision he ran into a buzz saw," says Aubrey Sarvis, an ex-GI and executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a nonprofit group dedicating to lifting the ban. "I see very few, if any, good things about 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' - it means you have to lie or deceive every day."

About 12,000 service members have been booted from the military since the law took effect, including dozens of Arabic speakers whose skills are particularly prized by the military since the advent of the war on terror. While the number discharged for their sexuality has fallen from 1,273 in 2001 to 612 in 2006, Pentagon officials insist they are applying the law as fairly as ever. Gay-rights advocates disagree, suggesting the military - pressed for personnel amid an unpopular war - is willing to ignore sexual orientation when recruiting becomes more difficult. Last May, a CNN poll found that 79 percent of Americans feel that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military.

But Americans in the military seem less friendly to the idea of junking the ban. A 2006 opinion poll by the independent Military Times newspapers showed that only 30% of those surveyed think openly gay people should serve, while 59% are opposed. "I don't think they'll succeed, but I think they'll try," Donnelly says of the Democrats' efforts to repeal the ban. Darrah, the retired Navy officer, says success depends on who moves into the Oval Office a year from now. "I believe if we get a Democratic President we'll get rid of the ban," says Darrah, who is backing Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House. "The younger generation doesn't care one bit."

By Mark Thompson, Time, January 28, 2008

The Clinton camp would like to brush off the weekend primary in South Carolina as not really that representative because so many African Americans voted. That in essence was what former president Bill Clinton was saying when he dismissed Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's victory over New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton by comparing it to Jesse Jackson's victories in South Carolina during his runs for the presidency in the 1980s.

But in fact, the numbers don't bear that out. If half as many black voters turned out, Obama still would have beaten Clinton, albeit not by as large a margin. Let's say, for instance, that African American voters represented just 20 percent of the total electorate in South Carolina instead of the 55 percent they did -- closer to, say, their share of the New York Democratic electorate. Assuming each candidate won the same proportionate support within each racial group, then Obama still would have won the primary with 34.6 percent of the overall vote to 32.6 percent for Clinton and 32.4 percent for former North Carolina senator John Edwards.

The reason is that Obama did pretty well among white voters as well. He received 24 percent of the white vote compared with 36 percent for Clinton, according to exit polls sponsored by The Washington Post and other news organizations. So even if the white vote were much larger, as in our scenario above, he would be close enough to Clinton that his overwhelming advantage among African Americans (he won 78 percent of the black vote to her 19 percent) would still be enough to put him over the top.

Now there are all sorts of reasons this back-of-the-envelope math doesn't necessarily mean that much. The dynamics that played out in South Carolina may be much different in other states. Each state has its own particular economic, cultural, political and demographic characteristics, and the campaign dialogue may play out differently elsewhere. Plus, other upcoming states--particularly California and Florida--have large Hispanic populations and Obama saw in Nevada that Hispanic voters broke strongly for Clinton.

But the point is that Obama did not win South Carolina solely because the electorate there was disproportionately African American. Even with some of the most racially charged discussion of the campaign so far, he still extended his appeal across racial lines, at least enough to make a difference. And since he proved in Iowa that he can win even in predominantly white states, it's fair to assume he is not a candidate relegated to one demographic -- at least if he does not let the Clintons marginalize him by making him out to be the Jesse Jackson of 2008.

What is less knowable is what would have happened had John Edwards not been in the race. The South Carolina native won 40 percent of the white vote. Did he draw white votes that would have gone to Clinton had it been a two-person contest with Obama? Did he draw the "change voters" hoping to shake up Washington away from the other perceived change agent, Obama? Or did simply draw those voters who were turned off by the acrid discourse between Clinton and Obama, the "grown-up wing of the Democratic Party," as Edwards tried to term it? Hard to say, of course. The punditocracy would probably lean more toward the idea that Edwards split the white vote and therefore helped Obama. At the moment, both camps are talking with Edwards people in the expectation that he may drop out. Yet he has vowed to stay in through the convention at least to play some sort of kingmaker role.

Looking ahead to Super Tuesday a week from tomorrow, Obama obviously has to be able to win in different kinds of states with different kinds of demographics to beat Clinton for the nomination. Only in Georgia and Alabama will he find dynamics similar to South Carolina's. But he obviously can win his home state, Illinois. Now, with an endorsement coming today from Se. Edward Kennedy, he has a good chance of winning Massachusetts as well. He could be competitive in places such as Arkansas and Tennessee. He has set up organizations in a lot of the small states that have caucuses, hoping to replicate the strategy that worked for him in Iowa. Clinton presumably wins New York and New Jersey easily enough.

A big test will be California, the motherlode of delegates. Suffice it to say, California is not South Carolina any way you play with the numbers.

By Peter Baker, The Washington Post, January 28, 2008

A pair of late afternoon Senate votes brought Obama and Clinton together in rare proximity and made for some drama on the Senate floor.

Obama glided from desk to desk and was greeted by his colleagues like a returning prizefighter. Standing at the back of the chamber, he joked with Sens. Jim Webb (Va.) and Jon Tester (Mont.), both uncommitted in the Democratic nomination battle. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota joined the group, and Conrad, who endorsed Obama weeks ago, took the roll: "Obama, Obama, Obama," Conrad said, pointing to himself, McCaskill and the Illinois senator himself. "We're for Obama," he said, looking at Tester and Webb. "What about you?"

Sen. Bernard Sanders of Vermont stopped by to shake Obama's hand, as did Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey. Both are still on the fence. Obama chatted with Sens. Ken Salazar of Colorado and Tom Carper of Delaware, another pair of undecided Democrats, who represent Feb. 5 states (as does Lautenberg). Even Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, stopped by to pay his respects. McCaskill will campaign tomorrow in Missouri with Obama, and before walking away she told him, "Get some sleep."

For most of this lovefest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton remained out of view, having stepped into the cloakroom during the first vote. There she ran into Kennedy, and the two exchanged greetings, according to people familiar with the conversation. Later, she took a seat next to Sen. Chuck Schumer, her fellow New Yorker. But by then Obama had cast his second vote and left the chamber.

On his way to the floor, Kennedy shrugged off the influence that his rousing endorsement of Obama earlier in the day might have on his colleagues. "These are all professional politicians. They know their political interests much better than I do," Kennedy said.

By Shailagh Murray, The Washington Post, January 28, 2008

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

Two Rasmussen polls -- taken by telephone on two separate, single days last week -- show Sen. Hillary Clinton leading among likely Democratic primary voters in Missouri, while Sen. John McCain and Gov. Mike Huckabee are locked in a dead heat.

The poll has it 43 Clinton/ 24 Sen. Barack Obama/ 18 former Sen. John Edwards. (Taken Jan. 24, 798 Dems; by phone; error margin +/- 4%.)

The Republican poll has it 27 Huckabee/ 26 McCain/ 18 former Gov. Mitt Romney/ 7 former mayor Rudy Giuliani/ 5 Rep. Ron Paul. (Taken Jan. 23, 589 Repubs; by phone; error margin +/- 4%.)

By Dave Helling on January 28, 2008

Here's something fun to watch in the Senate today - Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will actually have to sit in the same room with one another and vote on an intelligence bill, then watch the man they hope to replace give his final State of the Union speech.

In a rare appearance, the now embittered rivals will show up for their day jobs in the Senate. They're primarily in town for President Bush's speech, but the two Democratic presidential hopefuls won't get an easy bill to vote on when they stroll into the Senate today.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill is up for a procedural vote, with Republicans pushing to shut off debate and invoke cloture, while Democrats insist more time is needed to discuss a controversial provision that would grant lawsuit immunity to telecommunications firms. Republicans are insisting on a vote on telecom liability, forcing Democrats to choose between a national security priority and civil liberties concerns.

Both Obama and Clinton have said they will vote against the procedural motion, putting them on record against President Bush's expansion of warrantless wiretapping.

"I continue to believe that a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong," Clinton said. "The Bush administration has blatantly disregarded Americans' civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans' privacy rights."



By Martin Kady II, The Politico, January 28, 2008

Los Angeles, CA (AHN) - Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) is the top GOP hopeful in California, while Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) leads Democrats ahead of the state's February 5 primary.

A new USA Today/Gallup survey said on Monday that McCain has 35 percent support among likely Republican voters in the Golden state while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has 27 percent. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani trail with 12 percent and 11 percent, respectively, followed by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) with 5 percent. Alan Keyes received 1 percent and 2 percent of voters surveyed said they would vote for other candidates. Seven percent said they had no opinion.

Clinton was ahead of all Democratic hopefuls with 47 percent, followed by Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) with 35 percent and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards with 10 percent. Two percent of voters said they supported other candidates and 7 percent said they had no opinion.

USA Today/Gallup conducted telephone interviews of 755 Republican registered voters and 779 Democratic or independent registered voters on January 23 to January 26. The maximum margin of error for both groups is 4 points.

California is one of more than 20 states that will hold their contests on Super Tuesday.

By Kris Alingod, AHN News Writer, January 28, 2008

MIAMI - One of the big disputes taking place between Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama these days is over an election that is - or is not - taking place here on Tuesday: the Florida Democratic primary.

Mr. Obama, pointing out that there are no delegates at stake and that the candidates agreed not to campaign in Florida, has dismissed the vote as meaningless. Mrs. Clinton, eager to get her beleaguered campaign a win after its lopsided defeat to Mr. Obama in South Carolina, is planning to swoop into Florida on Tuesday night as the polls close for what she assumes - and what polls suggests - will be a victory celebration.

The significance of this primary is certainly questionable. Because Florida scheduled its primary for a date earlier than what the Democratic National Committee wanted, the committee sanctioned the state by announcing it would refuse to sit any of its delegates at the convention. Democratic leaders in four early states - Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina - pressured the major Democratic candidates to sign a pledge not to campaign here.

While there arguably have been some under-the-radar-screen activities on behalf of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, the candidates have stayed out rather than risk the wrath of the Democratic National Committee or those four states.

The result of all this stands as the latest evidence of the extent to which the Democratic National Committee, in the view just about everyone involved in this presidential campaign, has lost control of the most basic party function: forging agreement on a calendar by which the party picks its nominee. The result has given Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama something else to fight over. It has, as Florida Democratic officials are quick to point out, damaged the party's reputation in the this storied battleground of a state. And it has, at least arguably, disenfranchised many Florida Democrats who seem understandably eager to have a voice in choosing the nominee.

Consider this: As of the end of the weekend, more than 400,000 Democrats had already cast early votes, either in person or by mail, and there are still 80,000 more absentee votes that could still come in. There has been a similarly large turn-out among Republicans.

The heavy voting is partly a result of a property tax initiative that is on the ballot. But more than that, the early turn-out reflects the fact that even without the physical presence of the Democratic candidates, this state has been pulsing with presidential politics for more than week.

The front page of The Miami Herald last week was covered with a huge graphic illustrating both a Republican and Democratic state presidential poll. The South Carolina Democratic primary, and the high-profile battling between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, was heavily covered in Florida media markets. Unlike Michigan, another state that broke the rules and scheduled its primary early, the names of all the major Democratic candidates are on the thousands of absentee ballots that have been mailed out, and in literature that Clinton and Obama supporters have been handing out.

And while Democrats candidates have dutifully stayed away, Republican presidential candidates have not, traveling the state intensely and contributing to a stream of political news on the nightly news. Who could blame a Democratic voter for thinking there might actually be a race here?

Supporters of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have watched these developments with frustration. Both camps believe they could have won here if this had been a genuine contest, complete with a full diet of candidate appearances, television advertisements, debates and get-out-the-vote operations.

"We believe firmly that if our candidate could have come to this state and campaigned and spent money here that we could have won the state," said Terry Watson, who is heading a grass-roots operation for Mr. Obama here. "If you looked at anyplace that Barack Obama has ever campaigned, he goes from extremely low number to very high, high numbers. We haven't had him here and we didn't have the opportunity to let that happen."

Mrs. Clinton's confidence in how she might do here is reflected in her decision to come here to celebrate a victory, symbolic or not. And just to make sure that that no one accuses her of breaking her word to the Democratic National Committee or the early four states, her campaign made clear that she will not appear in public here until after the polls are closed and the campaign is over.

The Republican candidates have not been forced to go through such contortions as they seek to compete in this, the nation's fourth-largest state. Yes, the Republican primary here is also being held in defiance of the party rules. But in this case, the Republican National Committee - no doubt looking ahead to the general election next fall - imposed a far less onerous penalty: The candidates would be penalized just half of the delegates they otherwise would have won. No one sought to force them to sign a pledge to keep out. All the Republicans considered it a price worth paying.

And what to make of the results? If viewed in the prism of the way both campaigns are looking at the contest now - a race for delegates - it won't make much of a difference. Mrs. Clinton will no doubt try to use the platform of a victory here, assuming she wins, as a mini-bump going into Feb. 5.

But most of all, the results will offer a peculiarly unfiltered glimpse of an electorate: An election that will be cast without a crush of television advertisements, appeals and attacks pitched to the particular politics of this state and get-out-the-vote operations. Yes, Mrs. Clinton might benefit from that, being the better-known quantity after all these years, and given the fact that Florida voters never really got a chance to see Mr. Obama. So the result might or might not be meaningless, but it certainly could be interesting.

By Adam Nagourney, The New York Times, January 28, 2008

Super Duper Tuesday sounds like a special mealtime offering at Friendly's or Applebee's. But it is an expression coined last February by Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, during a discussion on "The Situation Room" about the crowded calendar for presidential primaries.

Since then, "Super Duper Tuesday" has been mentioned 71 times on CNN, and it has gained an edge over phrases like Tsunami Tuesday and Giga Tuesday in efforts to distinguish this Feb. 5 from what has traditionally been called Super Tuesday, the date when the greatest number of states hold primary elections.

This year, 24 states, the most ever, are scheduled to hold primaries or caucuses for one or both parties.

"It's a pretty standard thing language-wise to do this," said Erin McKean, editor of the language quarterly Verbatim, referring to the "super duper" coinage, known in linguistics as reduplication. "In written and spoken language most people try to strike a balance between attention-getting novelty and getting their point across. One way to do that is vary one part of a phrase and have the rest of it be the same old, same old."

Ms. McKean added: "We're all familiar with the concept of comparatives and superlatives - good, better, best. But you can't do that with 'super.' So how do you make it more intense? You add an intensifier.

" 'Super duper' is a common phrase but it's a little casual. It has an aura of jokiness," she said. "I think the person who coined it must have been thinking how silly it is that all these states are running to the front of the line. But where else can you go? 'Magnificent Tuesday'? "

Other language experts said the expanded phrase could be viewed simply as part of the adjective arms race. "I think there is a tendency to keep coming up with more extreme superlatives," said Jesse Sheidlower, editor at large of the Oxford English dictionary. "That's why any existing superlative loses power. 'Awesome' now merely means good."

Whether Super Duper Tuesday will continue to have currency beyond Feb. 5 or go the way of Y2K is uncertain. When Barbara Wallraff, the back-page word columnist for The Atlantic, first heard the expression, "I thought it was the right phrase and that we would use it until Super Tuesday was over and we were done talking about it," she said.

"We'll see. If I'm right, in four years it will revert to being called Super Tuesday."

FAYETTEVILLE - It seemed like a good idea to lawmakers to move Arkansas' presidential primaries from May to Feb. 5.

The rationale was to give Arkansas an earlier say in the 2008 presidential race and to draw the attention and business of candidates and the media covering them, legislators argued back in 2005. Only seven states held presidential primaries or caucuses that early in the last presidential election. Iowa and New Hampshire were even earlier.

The only ones who argued against it pointed out the state has to pay for these primaries, thanks to a court decision that the state bear this expense to ensure all parties’ voters are treated fairly.

It looks like an even better idea now, even though 16 other states have moved their presidential primary to the first Tuesday in February, says the Democratic Party of Arkansas chairman.

"We have former first lady of Arkansas Hillary Clinton and former Gov. Mike Huckabee running in these primaries. The idea of not getting to vote in these races until our regular May 20 primaries is something we would have regretted forever," state Democratic chairman Bill Gwatney said. "The only other state that would have voted after us would have been South Dakota."

The Republican Party chairman is not as sold on the idea of an earlier, president-only primary. Let's get through the thing before deciding if moving was worthwhile, Dennis Milligan said.

And what about future years if presidential primaries don't have Arkansans in them?

"Look at the excitement this has created," Gwatney said. "Look at the record turnouts in Iowa and New Hampshire. I think this thing is snowballing everywhere, building upon itself."

A Small Voice

In a related development, the Green Party qualifies to hold its presidential primary in Arkansas for the first time this year. Supporters gathered 10,000 signatures allowing their party to have a ballot.

In all, the early primary will cost the state about $2 million, according to Natasha Naragon, spokeswoman for Secretary of State Charlie Daniels.

Twenty-four states will hold one or both of their party presidential pickings on the same day as Arkansas. Nine are earlier. Michigan and Florida have had their Democratic primaries declared invalid because they moved the dates up sooner than party rules allow. Republicans are in the same boat in Florida, Michigan, South Carolina, Wyoming and New Hampshire but will only be penalized by having half their delegates taken away, if the national GOP sticks to that punishment.

More than half of the delegates to this year's Democratic National Convention will base their votes on the Feb. 5 results, compared to about two out of five delegates to the Republican National Convention.

Arkansas gets 47 delegates to the Democratic convention and 34 to the GOP convention. Most, but not all, will vote according to the Feb. 5 election results. This is out of a total of 1,688 Democratic and 976 Republican delegates that will be committed to candidates on Feb. 5.

"Oh, I think it would be accurate to say that Arkansas will have a small voice, but we won't be drowned out," said Hoyt Purvis, professor of journalism and political science at the University of Arkansas.

It's better than having no voice at all, Purvis said, adding, "This election's so wild and crazy, it's hard to know what effect it's going to have."

Andrew Dowdle, an assistant political science professor at the university, said Arkansas' results will be worthwhile, and closely watched. Dowdle is writing a book on the U.S. presidential primary process.

"Obviously, in terms of delegates, it's not very important, but you have two candidates closely associated with Arkansas in the primaries, one on each side," Dowdle said, adding that Clinton and Huckabee have to do well in the state or it would be an embarrassment for them.

"It's almost a no-win proposition for them," Dowdle said. "If they win, people expected them to do well but there's not a whole lot of delegates. If they don't do as well, people will be looking at that as a negative referendum."

'Super Delegates'

Arkansas is not a "winner-take-all" state. Most serious candidates have a chance to pick up some delegates - and cut into the expected leads of the hometown favorites, political observers said.

"That's especially true in the Republican primary, where you can pick up delegates with as little as 10 percent of the vote," said Jay Barth, political science professor at Hendrix College in Conway.

Dowdle said the decision on whether to campaign in Arkansas becomes a calculation.

"If you’re Barack Obama, John Edwards or a Republican candidate other than Huckabee, do you spend time and effort to pick up a couple of delegates?" he said. "Even if you don't get that many delegates, it could be worth it to require Huckabee and Clinton to spend resources here that they could spend elsewhere."

Outright victory isn't the only desirable result for other candidates, Barth said.

"That's the lay of the land. We have two clear favorites but a delegate hunt," he said.

With the Democrats, 22 delegates are elected by congressional district. The 1st and 2nd Districts get six while the 3rd and 4th districts get five. The difference comes because the number of delegates a district gets is based on Democratic turnout in presidential and governor's elections, he said. All these are sorted among the candidates according to the percentage each candidate gets of the vote in each of the districts on Feb. 5. Another eight are at-large delegates for the whole state. They are apportioned according to the percentage of the vote in the whole state.

That leaves 17. Of those, 11 are "super-delegates" who may vote as they wish, but all but three of those are pledged to Clinton. These super-delegates are congressmen, the governor - if the governor is a Democrat - and party leaders, including Gwatney.

Gwatney and U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., have not pledged to any candidate.

"As party leader, I'm going to give my delegate vote to whoever wins our state primary," Gwatney said.

Milligan said he's committed to Huckabee.

State Primary To Follow

The balance consists of "Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official" delegates, which includes other state elected officials, including legislators and mayors of major Arkansas cities.

The GOP has 19 at-large delegates who are apportioned according to the statewide vote. A total of 12 delegates are picked by congressional district, with each district getting three. The balance is made up by "super delegates" such as Milligan.

The Green Party's delegate selection process is still being debated by the national party, said Jim Lendall of Mablevale, the organization's national committee member from Arkansas.

One thing that county officials are left to wonder about is what effect, if any, the presidential primary will have on the May 20 state primaries.

"I think there's a chance it could hurt turnout in both primaries," said John Burrow, Washington County Election Commission chairman. "There are people who vote in presidential primaries that aren't all that interested in local races, and people who vote in local races that aren't all that interested in presidential politics".

By Doug Thompson, Arkansas News Bureau, January 28, 2008

Today's Q polls find Rudy Giuliani is in a statistical dead heat for third place with Mike Huckabee in Florida while John McCain and Mitt Romney are battling for first place more than 15 percentage points ahead of the former mayor.

Among likely Sunshine State Republican voters, Giuliani gets 14 percent to Huckabee's 13. McCain is at 32 percent and Romney at 31.

Just two weeks ago, a Q poll found a four-way GOP horserace in Florida, with McCain at 22 percent, Giuliani at 20 and Romney and Huckabee at 19 each.

"Sen. McCain and Gov. Romney are tight as a tick, although McCain’s supporters appear slightly more committed," said Q poll Assistant Director Peter Brown. "With 24 hours to go, the race is up in the air. Whichever candidate finishes strongest will win Florida and all 57 of its reduced delegate count.”

“The major unknown in the final hours before primary day, which could make the critical difference in determining the winner, is how much weight the endorsements by Gov. Charlie Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez of Sen. McCain carry with Florida Republicans."

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 50-30 among likely primary voters, with 12 percent for John Edwards. (No wonder she's so keen on having the Florida delegates seated at the convention).

In a Jan. 14 Q poll, Clinton topped Obama 52-31.

By Elizabeth Benjamin, New York Daily News, January 28, 2008

If Barack Obama wins the Democratic nomination, it looks now as though he'll have to be ready to face Romney or McCain. The former will mimic and belittle Obama with an onslaught of economic jargon and slights far beyond what he has endured from Hillary or Bill Clinton. And McCain won't play Mr. Nice Guy either.

Barack Obama has a lot to offer this country. He and Michelle may indeed be nicer than Hillary and Bill Clintin -- at least for now having not been pummeled by the Republicans for decades. That would give anyone a crust. But where's the backbone and verbal agility that can beat today's Republicans? Their machine isn't a bulldozer; it's a shredder.

Sympathy is a soft, short-lived passion. It helps a bit at first, but fizzles to nothing, or worse disappointment. In politics, if you can't respond to adversarial remarks with intellect and wit eventually you're toast -- even with a dual Kennedy endorsement.

That's why Bill Kristol was pro-sympathy-for-Obama Sunday on Fox -- criticizing Juan Williams for being insensitive, which he wasn't. Kristol sang a different song last year when he was on the attack. Republicans are actively promoting the sympathy theme to keep Obama unpracticed and to get Clinton out.

If Obama is nominated, a lot of us will be wishing he'd been allowed more solo verbal sparring practice. How else is he going to prepare for the ugliness ahead? How else is he going to win?

By Kathleen Reardon, The Huffington Post, January 28, 2008

MIAMI - The presidential campaign is entering a new phase as Democratic and Republican candidates move beyond state-by-state competition and into a potentially protracted scramble for delegates Congressional district by Congressional district.

The shifting terrain is influencing the strategies of candidates from both parties - though decidedly more so for Democrats - as they move from early state contests to the coast-to-coast contests on Feb. 5, when 41 percent of Republican delegates and 52 percent of Democratic delegates will be chosen.

It is the first time in over 20 years in which the campaign has turned into a possibly lengthy hunt for delegates, rather than an effort to roll up a string of big-state victories.

This development reflects the competitive races in both parties, with neither a Republican nor a Democrat yet able to claim front-runner status. It has forced the campaigns to master complex delegate-allocation rules as they make a series of critical decisions about how best to allocate campaign resources to produce the greatest return of delegates.

Many of these decisions involve as little as a single delegate.

"We are going to compete in all 22 states; you can't ignore states," said David Plouffe, the campaign manager for Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois. "But you want to get as many delegates as you can. At the end of the day, this is a delegate contest."

Carl Forti, the political director for Mitt Romney, a Massachusetts Republican, said: "There's two things going forward at this point. One is momentum; but two, it's about delegates."

For Republicans, this means, for example, turning to approximately 10 heavily Democratic Congressional districts in California where there are relatively few registered Republicans, making it easier, and less expensive, to win a district and its three delegates. Both Senator John McCain of Arizona and Mr. Romney are heading there on Wednesday.

For Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Mr. Obama, it means investing resources - mailings, telephone banks and candidate visits - in Congressional districts where there are an odd number of delegates at stake, creating an opportunity to pick up an extra delegate.

Under Democratic rules, two candidates who do well in a Congressional district are likely to end up evenly dividing the delegates; where there is an odd number of delegates, the extra one goes to the candidate who wins more votes.

"It's all about the delegates!" Mr. Obama said the other day, shouting his words to a crowd of supporters. His itinerary this week includes a visit to California but also to smaller states that his aides said offered opportunities for picking up delegates, whether or not he can win the state itself: Arizona, Kansas, Missouri and New Mexico.

This new dynamic is not only challenging the way the candidates are approaching the contest, but is also throwing into confusion how the results of these contests should be judged, by the campaigns and by the news media that report on them.

Given Democratic rules, it is entirely possible for one candidate to win a majority of Feb. 5 states, and enjoy the election night ratification that comes with a TV network map displaying the geographic sweep of that person's accomplishment, while his (or her) opponent ends the night with the most delegates.

On the Republican side, it is possible for one of the candidates to win the overall popular vote in California, but end up with fewer delegates than a rival, since most of the delegates are awarded in winner-take-all Congressional district races.

"This race requires everyone to sort of throw away their old assumptions and start thinking anew," said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. "The important thing to measure on Feb. 5 is where we are in terms of delegates. My guess is one of us will be ahead, but not decisively, and one of us will be behind, but not decisively, and this will go on for some time."

Democrats had a preview of this in the Nevada caucuses when Mrs. Clinton won the actual vote of people who attended the caucuses, but Mr. Obama won 13 delegates to her 12, leaving the two sides squabbling over who had prevailed.

The fight was renewed Sunday when aides to Mrs. Clinton argued that the Florida primary on Tuesday - in which no delegates are at stake, because the state held its primary earlier than allowed by the Democration National Committee - should nonetheless be viewed as a measure of the strength of the candidates.

Mr. Obama's advisers ridiculed the argument, given that the primary is purely a beauty contest.

The possibility of a long-term slog is real for Democrats, given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama appear evenly matched in resources and political talent.

It is less certain on the Republican side, pending the outcome of the party's primary here on Tuesday. Aides to Mr. Romney and to Mr. McCain said they were putting off many crucial decisions, in particular where to go and how to invest resources, based on who wins in Florida.

McCain campaign aides said that if Mr. Romney lost here on Tuesday, it would clear the road for Mr. McCain to win the nomination by traditional rules: sweep enough state contests on Feb. 5 to rally the party around him as the presumptive nominee.

Still, McCain aides said they were making decisions about how to approach Feb. 5 based on what would net them the most delegates, looking first and foremost at a handful of states where the winner gets all the delegates, either statewide or district by district.

"It's triage," said Rick Davis, campaign manager for Mr. McCain. "But winner-take-all states have got to be the top priority. The cost per delegate is so much lower."

For Democrats, 2,025 delegates are needed to win; for Republicans, the number is 1,191.

The sheer number of states in play - indeed, the sheer number of Congressional districts in play - has presented an extraordinary tactical challenge to these candidates at a time when they are running low on resources. It is prohibitively expensive to poll in all these states and districts to determine where to spend money. It is also prohibitive to run voter identification operations or advertise everywhere a candidate might be competitive.

Aides to Mrs. Clinton and to Mr. Obama said they had tried to compensate for that by building models, based on past voting history and even consumer data, to pinpoint Congressional districts where voters would seem particularly open to their candidate.

Beyond that, the delegate rules for Democrats and for Republicans are different and, within each party, often vary from state to state. For example, the Republicans have some states where the statewide winner gets all the delegates, providing an obvious target for a candidate who might seem strong there. Among them are Missouri, New Jersey, New York and Utah.

But there are other states where the delegates are allocated by Congressional district, sometimes winner-take-all, and sometimes proportionally.

By contrast, Democrats eliminated the so-called winner-take-all rules. Instead, delegates are allocated depending on the percentage of vote each candidate gets in a Congressional district, under very expansive rules that, generally speaking, mean the candidates divide the trove evenly assuming they get more than 30 percent of the vote. There are also some delegates allocated statewide, again proportionately.

That rule, aides to both campaigns said, has the effect in a race that seems so closely matched of making it extremely hard for anyone to pull far ahead.

"It's going to be really hard - I'm not saying it's impossible - it's going to be very difficult for someone to pull out way ahead in a delegate count," said Tad Devine, a Democratic consultant and an expert on his party's nominating rules. "If you have two candidates who are getting 30 percent of the vote, and that is the scenario that is developing now, they are going to pretty much split the delegates."

Republican rules reward bonus delegates to states with a Republican voting history. This means that it might make more sense to invest time in Missouri than the more populous larger state of New Jersey; there are more delegates to be won in Missouri because it voted Republican in the 2004 presidential race, and it is a much cheaper place to campaign.

By contrast, someone like Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York, who has long argued he would win by a slow accumulation of delegates, has banked on winner-take-all rules helping him sweep up large number of delegates in states like New York, New Jersey and Delaware. That said, his viability in those states will to no small extent be determined by how well he does here Tuesday.

And now the show starts here.

After tramping through snow in Iowa and New Hampshire, and wooing voters in South Carolina, Michigan and Nevada, the presidential candidates will focus on New York and nearly two dozen other states voting Feb. 5.

Leading Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton have yet to release campaign schedules beyond tomorrow, but aides say both campaigns will push for votes in New York City and on Long Island.

Both campaigns held rallies locally yesterday, albeit without their candidates. As a new USA Today/Gallup Poll showed Clinton with a 56 percent to 28 percent lead over Obama in New York, her supporters rallied in Rockland County, while Obama's camp held a news conference at City Hall in Manhattan.

The picture for Republicans is more uncertain. The winner of the GOP primary will take all of New York's delegates, unlike the Democrats, which will award them proportionately.

And with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani long considered the favorite here, other GOP contenders have not built established campaign structures. But as Giuliani may be sliding toward political obscurity, some polls show Arizona Sen. John McCain leading in the state, with Giuliani and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney close behind.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is backing Clinton but has not campaigned for her this month, said it is good for the state that candidates will focus their efforts here.

"In every other presidential election, we're almost after the fact, and now we're in play," Schumer said. "No matter who you're for, the fact that New York will matter is good for New York."

By REID J. EPSTEIN, Newsday, January 28, 2008

"I don't understand," wrote historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. in his diary in late 2000, "why educated and professional women, otherwise intelligent and tolerant, are so unreasonably possessed by Hillary-hatred ... I cannot extract a clear statement of why they all detest her."

After reading a new book that addresses precisely this question - a collection of essays titled "Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections by Women Writers" - neither can I. In fact, after reading all 30 essays, I don't want to know anymore.

The essays - written mostly by New York intellectuals, and edited by Susan Morrison, The New Yorker's articles editor - dissect Clinton's femininity, sexuality, clothes, mothering, marriage, mystique and, of course, likability. Or, more precisely, why so many educated, middle-class women have a visceral response to her. "My generation definitely has a Clinton problem," writes Amy Wilentz in an essay on Clinton's clothes, or "costumes."

The reasons for their suspicion outlined here are mostly personal - she doesn't have a hobby, aside from cleaning closets and completing crossword puzzles. She doesn't appear to have been deeply attached to her family pets. She lacks sensuousness. She showed a hint of cleavage. She wore turquoise earrings with a yellow pantsuit. She liked prim headbands. She changed her maiden name. She married Bill Clinton. She stayed married to Bill Clinton. She is still married to Bill Clinton. Even her voice, Marie Brenner writes, "reminds us of the fifth grade teacher we despised."

Imagine if men wrote a book about Clinton containing this kind of minutiae - the same women would turn and savage them for trivializing her.

And herein lies the conflict. Many of these authors would have expected to support a female presidential candidate. They came of age in the 1970s, were buoyed by the tumult, thrill and promise of the women's movement, but are now puzzled and discomfited by what appears to be the result of their labors, or their hopes - the polished, private, pragmatic Clinton. Her journey from Helen Reddy to Celine Dion may have been a necessary one, they concede, but is still symbolic of a slide from sister to sellout. As Katie Roiphe writes: "If Clinton is in many ways the embodiment of certain feminist ideals, then it may be that many of us don't like feminism in its purest form."

Whatever. Isn't the question: is she any good? Or, how will she lead the country? No one in this collection seriously analyzes her position on Iraq, her shift in health-care policy, her record as a senator, her promise of change, the likelihood that she can get elected or whether she has the right credentials. It is jarring - and worrying.

Many of the essays are clever, entertaining, provocative and elegantly written. But as you read one after the other, a certain self-loathing is evident: do we dislike Clinton, they ask, because she is like us - or not like us? If she is the Rorschach test so many claim her to be, that inkblot here is an unhappy woman. In a thoughtful piece, Dahlia Lithwick asks if women don't trust her because her suffering has been done in private: "We like to see all the crying and the dieting because we are still crying and dieting ourselves." Roiphe argues that what she calls Clinton's "phoniness" "may be so irritating, so unforgivable, to so many smart, driven women in part because it is our own." Some even complain she reminds them of their mothers - in a bad way.

The narcissism is overwhelming. And the standards she is held to are irrational. Jane Kramer admits she wants to know if Barack Obama has enough courage, ability and vision to be president. At the same time, she asks of Clinton: "Why do you want the job? What kind of woman does that make you?" "I take Hillary personally," she confesses, unnecessarily.

As Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire primary demonstrates, what unites women is not Hillary Clinton - it is attacks on Hillary Clinton. So when Rush Limbaugh says Americans don't want to watch a woman grow older in the White House, when Christopher Hitchens calls her an "aging and resentful female" or when John Edwards implies she is too emotional to be president, you can count on women hurdling into the Clinton camp. Katha Pollitt, for example, says that although she prefers Edwards and Obama on policy grounds, when she comes across "one of these sulfurous emanations from the national collective unconscious ... I want to sit down and write Hillary's campaign a check immediately."

The problem is that many of the authors seem unaware of how much support Hillary actually has among women. Roiphe declares, "I have yet to meet a woman who likes Hillary Clinton." How, then, to explain that polling has consistently shown blue-collar women have rallied to Clinton's campaign, along with older women? A recent Pew Research Center study found 49 percent of female Democratic supporters back Clinton - only 28 percent chose Obama.

So not all women think the same way. It's just that some voices are a lot louder than others.

HARTFORD - More than 1,000 people turned out today for a Connecticut speech by Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Clinton, a senator from neighboring New York, spoke at a town hall forum at The Learning Corridor, focusing on the economy as she campaigned in advance of Connecticut's Feb. 5 primary.

She turned her focus from primary opponent Sen. Barack Obama to President Bush, who she said is isolated at the White House.

"I have been in and out of the homes and work places and community centers across America," she said. "What they want to talk to me about is the insecurity they feel and the fears they are confronting."

Here are the latest results from the California poll by USA Today/Gallup Poll published on USAElectionPolls.com:

There were 779 voters polled on 1/23-26.

USA Today/Gallup Poll Date: 1/23-26 California Added: 1/28/08 Est. MoE = 3.5%
Hillary Clinton	47%
Barack Obama	35%
John Edwards	10%
Unsure	8%

Quote:

Clinton leads Barack Obama by 12 points to 18 points, depending on turnout assumptions. John Edwards languishes much further behind.

About a fifth to a quarter of Democratic voters say they may still change their minds about their vote choice. Among those who claim to be certain of their choice at this time, Clinton still wins, but by a diminished margin.

The most important factor that could change the voting intentions of California Democrats may be the results of Saturday's South Carolina primary, which became known after interviewing for this survey had been completed. Obama's substantial win in that state, and the publicity surrounding it, could well have an effect on California Democrats, with the most obvious possibility being that Obama would gain.

Additionally, of course, the candidates will be campaigning in California in the days leading up to the Feb. 5 vote, and that could affect the final outcome.

The average poll results over the last 5 days in the California polls from USAElectionPolls.com are:

Candidate	%
Hillary Clinton	47
Barack Obama	35
John Edwards	10

USAElectionPolls, January 28, 2008

Former Gov. Bruce King and his wife, Alice, have endorsed New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

"She was always very interested in uplifting everyone," the 84-year-old King said Saturday, noting he has known the former first lady since the '70s.

Clinton also has endorsements from Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, Albuquerque Mayor Martin Chavez and John Wertheim, former chair of New Mexico Democratic Party.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has been endorsed by state Treasurer James Lewis, former Democratic National Committee chairman Fred Harris, former Albuquerque mayor Jim Baca and state House Majority Leader Ken Martinez of Grants.

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

ST. LOUIS - Sens. John McCain and Hillary Clinton are the leading choices for Missourians who plan to vote in the Feb. 5 primary, according to new polls conducted for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV.

The latest poll figures show Sen. Barack Obama lagging 13 points behind Clinton in Missouri. Research 2000 conducted two polls last week for the newspaper and television station.

A poll of 500 Republicans found McCain with 31 percent of the support, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee with 25 percent, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney with 21 percent, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani at 8 percent and Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 6 percent.

In a poll of likely Democratic primary voters who were asked how they would vote if the primary were "today," Clinton was favored by 44 percent, Obama had 31 percent and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards received 18 percent.

Eight percent of Republicans were undecided, compared with 6 percent of Democrats. That poll had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points.

The other poll, with a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points, matched up candidates from both parties against each other.

Clinton and McCain were in a statistical tie head-to-head.

Barack supporters held an event at his campaign headquarters in St. Louis on Sunday afternoon, to rally support after Obama's big win in the South Carolina primary Saturday. "We have not as Democrats had anyone this inspiring since John F. Kennedy," former Sen. Jean Carnahan said at the gathering. Obama's campaign said it would be in St. Louis on Saturday night, but additional details were not available.

Research 2000 chief Del Ali said Clinton's two Democratic rivals, Obama and Edwards, fared better than Clinton in the polls head-to-head against McCain, both narrowly edging him out.

Obama would do better against the top three top Republicans by slightly larger margins than Clinton or Edwards in identical matchups.

The newspaper reported that's because Obama and Edwards are a bit stronger than Clinton among nonaligned independent voters. Clinton and McCain are in a virtual tie because they snagged statistically equal shares of the independent voters.

It's the independent voters who make the difference and determine who's ahead, Ali said, noting their cooler opinion of Clinton could be a problem in November.

Ali said the poll's biggest news is the sudden shift in fortunes among Republicans, compared with Research 2000's last Missouri poll in November.

In that poll, Giuliani was in the lead, with support of about a quarter of the Republicans polled. In the new poll, Giuliani's support fell to single digits.

"It's astounding," Ali said. "Giuliani has fallen off the face of the Earth. And there's no question that voters are feeding off of McCain's success in other states."

Almost a third of Missourians polled in November rated the war in Iraq as their top issue. This time, their concerns were divided, with the economy nudging out the war. Health care was not far behind.

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

In New Hampshire, independent voters pushed Republican John McCain to victory. And Democrat Barack Obama regularly describes himself as the candidate to attract independents and Republicans to Democratic ideals.

But Tuesday, when voters go to the polls in the Florida primary, and again next week when New Yorkers do the same, independent voters will be shut out, potentially hurting the two presidential candidates who have based their campaigns partly on appealing to independents.

That's because New York and Florida, unlike the early voting states, allow only those registered with a political party to vote in primary elections.

"Certainly, closed primaries are better for those who have a stronger following among party faithful," said Steven Hill, the director of the political reform program for the nonpartisan New America Foundation.

That could benefit former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, McCain's chief competitor, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who polls show has the backing of most New York State Democrats.

Obama's victories, said Nassau County Democratic chairman Jay Jacobs, who backs Clinton, "had to be accented by independents and Republicans." In Iowa, polls indicated Clinton won among Democrats, but Obama's strength among independents and Republicans enabled him to win that state.

Among the 23 states with primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, 10 allow independent voters to participate in either party's election and 11 do not. California and Alaska allow independent voters to participate on the Democratic side but not the GOP.

New York's voting rules were established and maintained, according to Renee Paradis of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, to protect political parties. "New York has a lot of rules that are deeply protective of political parties and this is no exception," she said.

To vote in the Feb. 5 primary, New Yorkers not registered with a political party -- who are officially known as "blanks" -- would had to have changed their party affiliation by October.

Obama, an Illinois senator, rode support from independent voters to victory in Iowa's Jan. 3 caucuses and made strong appeals to independent voters in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

Many of those independents were young people, and it's the same here: In New York State, 18- to 34-year-olds make up 31 percent of unaffiliated voters; women make up the largest chunk, 52 percent.

But the independents can't vote in New York.

"Clearly he is much better able to appeal to independent voters and Republicans than Hillary Clinton is," said Suffolk Legis. Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor), Obama's Long Island campaign chairman.

The Republican side of the state's ballot is more complex. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani initially based his campaign on appealing to independent voters and moderate Republicans, but has seen his political stock plummet as McCain, the Arizona senator, has stolen his momentum. McCain now leads the GOP field here, polls show.

McCain, meanwhile, would not have won New Hampshire and South Carolina without independents' support, according to exit polls from both states.

But Assemb. Phil Boyle (R-West Islip), a McCain supporter, said he doesn't think McCain will miss independents' support in New York because GOP voters here traditionally don't follow lock-step behind party leaders, who back Giuliani.

"Republicans on Long Island and in other parts of the state have an independent streak to them," he said.

By REID J. EPSTEIN , Newsday, January 28, 2008

Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain are the favored candidates among their respective party voters in California, according to two polls.

New York Senator Clinton received 47 percent support among Democrats or independents planning to vote in the state's Feb. 5 primary compared with Illinois Senator Barack Obama's 35 percent and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards's 10 percent, a USA Today/Gallup poll found.

Among California Republicans, Arizona Senator McCain leads with 35 percent support over former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's 27 percent, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's 12 percent and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani's 11 percent, the newspaper said.

The poll of California voters, conducted Jan. 23-26, included 755 Republicans and 779 Democrats or independents with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points, USA Today reported.

That poll's double-digit leads in California for Clinton and McCain were echoed in a CNN-Los Angeles Times-Politico poll.

Clinton enjoyed 49 percent support of primary voters compared with 32 percent for Obama and 11 percent for Edwards, according to 690 probable Democratic primary voters sampled from Jan. 23-27. That segment of the poll had a plus or minus 4 percentage-point margin of error and included at least three days of surveys before Obama's victory over Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic primary Jan. 26.

The poll's survey of 437 probable Republican primary voters found McCain with 39 percent support and Romney with 26 percent. Giuliani had 13 percent support while Huckabee had 11 percent.

The poll of Republicans had a plus or minus 4.5 percentage point margin of error.

By Nadine Elsibai and Timothy J. Burger, Bloomberg, January 28, 2008

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is joining her colleague, Sen. Maria Cantwell, also D-Wash., in endorsing Hillary Clinton. That leaves Gov. Chris Gregoire as the last of the powerful triumvirate of women atop Washington politics to make an endorsement.

But Gregoire says she will announce her choice before the state's Feb. 9 presidential caucuses. In the past, she had said she was staying neutral out of respect for her fellow governor in the race, Bill Richardson of New Mexico. That gave her a nice safe parking space. I bet Clinton will push hard to get the governor join the two senators on stage with her before the caucuses. That's a photo that could get good play nationally.

By Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian, January 30, 2008

Barack Obama, fresh from a landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, plans to continue a campaign that is long on the need for change and inspiration and short on specifics.

The question in the tight Democratic race is how Clinton, a New York senator, will adjust her campaign before the Super Tuesday primary contests in 22 states on Feb. 5, with the early indications that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will be less visible and she will focus more on the economy.

Democratic analysts said she needs a more consistent strategy in the next week. "This campaign has got to go back to what Clinton was about in 1992,'' said Julian Epstein, a Democratic strategist not affiliated with any campaign. "They've got to go back to the 'putting people first' message,'' he said. "Contrasting the '90s to what we're experiencing now is not a bad contrast.''

In addition to trouncing Clinton by a more than 2-to-1 margin in South Carolina on Jan. 26, Obama, an Illinois senator, has locked up two key endorsements. Caroline Kennedy, announcing her support yesterday, likened Obama to her father, President John F. Kennedy; Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the few Democrats with a national following, announced his endorsement today.

Also, Nobel Prize-winning author Toni Morrison, who described Bill Clinton as the U.S.'s "first black president'' a decade ago, announced her support for Obama. In a letter to Obama released by his campaign, she said he has displayed "wisdom'' that makes him "the man for this time.''

'Economic Challenges'

In an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation'' yesterday, Hillary Clinton, 60, zeroed in on economic issues. "I am particularly focused on doing what I can to try to get President Bush to be much more vigorous in responding to our economic challenges,'' she said. "It doesn't seem as though he really gets it.''

On the economy, the difficulty for Clinton will be to differentiate her positions from Obama's. According to people familiar with her campaign, she plans to hit harder on the housing crisis and, in California, on her alternative energy policies. The campaign is also counting on a victory in tomorrow's Florida primary to give her momentum.

All of the major candidates had pledged to minimize any early campaigning in Florida, which was sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee for moving up its primary date. Clinton made two campaign stops in the state yesterday.

Florida

Doug Hattaway, a Clinton campaign adviser, spoke of the importance of the "hundreds of thousands of'' voters in Florida, where Obama, 46, Clinton and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, 54, are on the ballot.

The Obama campaign, meanwhile, tried to draw a contrast between its campaign message, which they said is consistent, and the shifting claims and approaches taken by Clinton.

"Whoever prints the placards for them must be a busy person,'' said Robert Gibbs, an Obama campaign adviser. "To get the printing contract for their signs might amount to a full economic stimulus plan.''

On CBS, Clinton appeared to suggest that her husband's role in the campaign may change. Both Clintons have been criticized in recent weeks by black leaders who said they injected the issue of race into the campaign.

Comparison to Jackson

The former president drew fire by comparing Obama's South Carolina victory to that of Jesse Jackson, who won the state's Democratic presidential primaries in 1984 and 1988. Obama, without mentioning the Clintons by name, used his South Carolina victory speech to criticize opponents who will "say anything and do anything to win an election.''

In the interview yesterday, Hillary Clinton said it was "human nature'' to get carried away and also spoke of "sleep deprivation.'' At the same time, she said Bill Clinton, 61, is "going to continue to be with me and support me and speak out for me.''

A problem for Obama may arise in states with smaller black populations than South Carolina. In that contest, he captured an overwhelming majority of the vote of African-Americans, who comprised more than half of the Democratic electorate, while only getting about a quarter of the white vote. Edwards came in third with 18 percent of the primary's vote.

Another challenge will be the Latino vote; in the Nevada caucuses earlier this month, Hispanics went heavily for Clinton. The Super Tuesday primaries include California, Arizona and New Mexico, which have large Latino populations.

'Diverse Coalition'

While Clinton was in Florida yesterday, Obama traveled to Georgia and Alabama, two Super Tuesday states with sizable black populations. Obama has stressed that he wants to build a multiracial and bipartisan base of support. In South Carolina, Obama said he owed his victory to the "most diverse coalition of Americans we've seen in a long, long time.''

Senator Kennedy's endorsement had been sought by both Obama and Clinton. Obama asked Kennedy's counsel a year ago and, without making any commitment, he was advised to run. According to people familiar with the endorsement, Caroline Kennedy informed Obama two weeks ago and Senator Kennedy, 75, told him Jan. 24. The Massachusetts Democrat informed the Clintons yesterday that he was endorsing Obama.

The Clintons and Kennedys have had a close relationship for the past 15 years, and Bill Clinton has had several intense conversations with the senator on behalf of his wife in the past few weeks.

By Heidi Przybyla and Indira Lakshmanan, Bloomberg, January 28, 2008

2 Candidates Count On Ties to Hope, Ark.

HOPE, Ark. -- Bill Clinton's first home is a modest frame structure that looks out over the railroad tracks, a poster-plastered tobacco shop, a car lot and a Sonic fast-food drive-in. Mike Huckabee's boyhood home, just on the other side of downtown, is a small brick house that's only peashooter distance from where young Billy Blythe -- years before he changed his name to Clinton -- went to Miss Mary's Kindergarten.

If Huckabee defies the odds and makes it to the White House, political scientists and anthropologists may descend on Hope to find out what's in the water.

Could this humble place in southwest Arkansas, population 11,000, a town that can only dream of being as cosmopolitan as Texarkana, turn into the Birthplace of Presidents -- plural? Is there something about this place that makes possible the dreams of little boys?

"What made them think they could win?" asks Mary Nell Turner, 88, the unofficial town historian. She's known Clinton since early in his political career, and she taught Huckabee at Hope High School, where she recalls him as smart, mature and opinionated, but hardly future-presidential material. She taught journalism, and she poses all the right questions: "What drove them into politics? Why politics? Do they think they're going to change the world?"

Huckabee's chances of joining Clinton as local-boy-made-president will depend a lot on what happens on Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, when Arkansas holds its presidential primary. The Republican candidates will be fighting for 34 delegates here, and scores more in the evangelical-laden Southern states of Tennessee, Alabama and Georgia. Arkansas neighbors Oklahoma and Missouri will also hold primaries that day.

Clinton's return to the White House -- this time as a spouse -- also will depend a lot on Feb. 5, when Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who served as Arkansas' first lady before going to Washington with her husband and then launching her own political career, faces off against Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). The Clinton campaign is counting on Arkansas as a bulwark in the South after Obama's victory in South Carolina on Saturday.

Unlike South Carolina and other Southern states, Arkansas never experienced the dramatic switch in party affiliation that occurred among Southern white Democrats after the civil rights era. Arkansas has elected only one Republican as senator since Reconstruction, and for only a single term. About half the state legislative races are not competitive -- the GOP doesn't even field a candidate.

"It is not your traditional red Southern state by any stretch," says Janine Parry, a professor of political science at the University of Arkansas. Arkansans, she says, "are going to vote more on economics, on bread-and-butter issues, than they are on flash-in-the-pan social issues. It's what makes Arkansas different from the rest of the South."

Huckabee is the populist of the Republican contest, the candidate most likely to talk about the travails of the poor. That might cost him some support on Feb. 5 in the northwestern part of the state, the power base for hard-line Republicans who, according to Parry, have a great deal of animosity for Huckabee.

Some Arkansans may also support Hillary Clinton because they feel that her husband got a rough deal during his presidency, Parry says. She sums up a common attitude: "We're going to come out all guns blazing for our girl and our first family."

Turner says Hillary Clinton never spent much time around Hope because she was busy being a lawyer in Little Rock. But she vividly recalls a speech that Mrs. Clinton gave on education in the 1980s, just up the road in Arkadelphia. Turner has been sold on Clinton since. "I really think of her as an Arkansan," she says.

Hope is a Democratic town through and through, but Huckabee's aunt, Emilie Prescott, is a proud Republican. "The Democratic Party used to be the conservative party," she says. "And it's not anymore. It's the liberal party. They're not associated with the Christian principles that I feel like Mike has. And he's not ashamed to say it. We act like God can't be part of our land, and we are a Christian nation."

Anyone on the Huckabee trail in Hope has to pay a visit to a local dentist, Lester Sitzes III. Huckabee and Sitzes are hunting buddies. Just about every room in Sitzes's dental office has a signed, framed photo of Huckabee in camouflage, dangling unfortunate ducks. Sitzes says Huckabee aspired to be a baseball player, but he wasn't much of an athlete.

"He has very flat feet. He has no arches in his feet," the dentist says.

The things they know back home.

Presidential ambition may never yield its ultimate mysteries. There is nothing in Hope that suggests the town is uniquely suited to the cultivation of powerful men. In fact, the place is as ordinary as ordinary can be. When you see one of the boyhood homes of Clinton or Huckabee, your first thought is, "That's it?"

Myra Reese, Clinton's second cousin, still lives in Hope, and she recalls the sweet and rather chunky little boy she used to take to the movies. He was smart from the get-go: "We always credited it to his grandmother, who insisted that he read at an early age."

But lots of little kids have doting grandmothers. At some level, Hope's politician-spawning is purely a coincidence.

Turner and her friends came up with an interesting theory at a meeting of what they call the Dear Old Town Club, which spends a lot of time discussing Southern writers. The nature of Arkansans, the group decided, is that "they work hard, but when they have time to play, they have fun," Turner says.

Here, perhaps, is the secret to Bill Clinton's national success, and Huckabee's improbable rise this year: They look like they know how to have a good time. They don't seem to take themselves too seriously. Clinton played the saxophone, Huckabee jams on bass guitar (when not hanging with his buddy Chuck Norris). The homespun persona, the gosh-shucks demeanor, might conceivably backfire, but politics today depends so much on personality, and Arkansans seem to have personality to burn.

Next to a Clinton or a Huckabee, a lot of politicians seeking high office look like stuffed shirts -- like prigs who relax by reading exit polls or fussing with their hair.

"No doubt they're two of the most persuasive people you'll ever meet," Sitzes says. "When you talk to Mike or Bill, you feel they're really caring about you. They're not looking over your shoulder."

Hope's mayor, Dennis Ramsey, recalls that when Clinton was governor, people in town didn't pay much attention to his local roots. After all, he left after the first grade. He grew up in Hot Springs. But then political opportunity converged with biographical geography. In 1992, Clinton leveraged the name of his birthplace, turning it into a famous campaign slogan: "I still believe in a place called Hope."

The mayor notes the obvious: "He couldn't say, 'I still believe in a place called Hot Springs.' "

By Joel Achenbach, The Washington Post, January 28, 2008

A confident Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama shrugged off the buzz that he'd crash and burn with Latino voters, "Not in Illinois, they all voted for me." But not so fast; there was this retort from a reader, yeah, but you ran against Alan Keyes. Keyes, being the luckless and hapless Eleventh hour Republican political sacrificial lamb who Obama annihilated in his smash victory for the U.S. Senate in 2004. But this time around, Obama faces a far bigger opponent than Keyes could ever hope to be, or even for that matter archrival Hillary Clinton. It's the 'Nevada Phenomenon'. It poses a far bigger danger to Obama's White House drive than even the much debated 'Bradley Effect'.

The Bradley Effect is named after former Los Angeles. mayor Tom Bradley who lost his bid for California governor to a white opponent in 1986, though Bradley had big leads in polls. Many white voters told pollsters and interviewers that they had no problem voting for an African-American, but once in the privacy of the voting booth voted for his white opponent.

The 'Nevada Phenomenon' by contrast has nothing to do with the supposed penchant for white voters to deceive pollsters and interviewers on race. In the South Carolina primary white voters went in reverse. The polls had Obama winning only ten percent of the white vote but in his smash win he more than double that percent. The 'Nevada Phenomenon' instead is the mix of wariness, fear, indifference and even hostility of the majority of Latino voters toward a black candidate.

It is more troublesome and intractable than potential white voter resistance to Obama. Even though in South Carolina and other Deep South primary states Obama lags behind Clinton among white voters, he's still likely to get a respectable percent of white votes. That's not true with Latino voters. Obama's poll popularity with Latinos hasn't budged very much despite his heightened name identification, media boost, energizing change pitch and personal charisma.. And if the history of black candidates, even popular well known and victorious candidates that ran for office and bombed with Latino voters is any indication, Obama won't do much better than they did.

Start with the politician that gave the 'Bradley Effect' its dubious tag. During his 20 year reign as Los Angeles mayor, Bradley won election five times, and built a solid coalition of black, Jewish, and suburban Anglo white voters. However, Latino voters played only the barest of bare roles in Bradley's coalition and elections. Even though Latinos then made up nearly one-third of the city's population and were a rising percent of the voters, Bradley made few direct appeals to Latino voters for support.

DENVER (AP) - Democrat John Edwards is exiting the presidential race Wednesday, ending a scrappy underdog bid in which he steered his rivals toward progressive ideals while grappling with family hardship that roused voters' sympathies, The Associated Press has learned.

The two-time White House candidate notified a close circle of senior advisers that he planned to make the announcement at a 1 p.m. EST event in New Orleans that had been billed as a speech on poverty, according to two aides. The decision came after Edwards lost the four states to hold nominating contests so far to rivals who stole the spotlight from the beginning - Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

The former North Carolina senator will not immediately endorse either candidate in what is now a two-person race for the Democratic nomination, said one adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the announcement. Both candidates would welcome Edwards' backing and the support of the 56 delegates he had collected.

Edwards waged a spirited top-tier campaign against the two better-funded rivals, even as he dealt with the stunning blow of his wife's recurring cancer diagnosis. In a dramatic news conference last March, the couple announced that the breast cancer that she thought she had beaten had returned, but they would continue the campaign.

Their decision sparked a debate about family duty and public service. But Elizabeth Edwards remained a forceful advocate for her husband, and she was often surrounded at campaign events by well-wishers and emotional survivors cheering her on.

Edwards planned to announce his campaign was ending with his wife and three children at his side. Then he planned to work with Habitat for Humanity at the volunteer-fueled rebuilding project Musicians' Village, the adviser said.

With that, Edwards' campaign will end the way it began 13 months ago - with the candidate pitching in to rebuild lives in a city still ravaged by Hurricane Katrina. Edwards embraced New Orleans as a glaring symbol of what he described as a Washington that didn't hear the cries of the downtrodden.

Edwards burst out of the starting gate with a flurry of progressive policy ideas - he was the first to offer a plan for universal health care, the first to call on Congress to pull funding for the war, and he led the charge that lobbyists have too much power in Washington and need to be reigned in.

The ideas were all bold and new for Edwards personally as well, making him a different candidate than the moderate Southerner who ran in 2004 while still in his first Senate term. But the themes were eventually adopted by other Democratic presidential candidates - and even a Republican, Mitt Romney, echoed the call for an end to special interest politics in Washington.

Edwards' rise to prominence in politics came amid just one term representing North Carolina in the Senate after a career as a trial attorney that made him millions. He was on Al Gore's short list for vice president in 2000 after serving just two years in office. He ran for president in 2004, and after he lost to John Kerry, the nominee picked him as a running mate.

Elizabeth Edwards first discovered a lump in her breast in the final days of that losing campaign. Her battle against the disease caused her husband to open up about another tragedy in their lives - the death of their teenage son Wade in a 1996 car accident. The candidate barely spoke of Wade during his 2004 campaign, but he offered his son's death to answer questions about how he could persevere when his wife could die.

Edwards made poverty the signature issue of both his presidential campaigns, and he led a four-day tour to highlight the issue in July. The tour was the first to focus on the plight of the poor since Robert F. Kennedy's trip 40 years earlier.

But even as Obama and Clinton collected astonishing amounts of money that dwarfed his fundraising effort, Edwards maintained a loyal following in the first voting state of Iowa that made him a serious contender. He came in second to Obama in Iowa, an impressive feat of relegating Clinton to third place, before coming in third in the following three contests.

The loss in South Carolina was especially hard because it was where he was born and he had won the state in 2004.

By NEDRA PICKLER, The Associated Press, January 30, 2008

Some Experts Say N.Y. Senator Criticized More Than Her Male Opponents

From the color of her suit to her latest choice in hairstyle, Hillary Clinton and her appearance is a common topic of conversation, and according to political analysts, the female presidential candidate is scrutinized for her looks more so than her male counterparts.

"There's no doubt that [Clinton] is held to a different standard - the evaluation of appearance has always been traditionally different for female candidates," said Sarah Brewer, the associate director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University.

"It's really very sexist," Geraldine Ferraro, a former vice presidential candidate, told ABCNEWS.com. "Nobody is going to say they don't like how [Illinois Sen.] Barack Obama looks and nobody is going to say that about [former South Carolina Sen.] John Edwards."

Throughout the campaign season, Clinton's appearance has made headlines - particularly after an unflattering photo was featured on Matt Drudge's Drudge Report in December 2007 - zooming in on every line and wrinkle on the New York senator's face.

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh spoke about the photograph in December, posing the question that was on many people's minds: "Will Americans want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?"

"And that woman, by the way, is not going to want to look like she's getting older, because it will impact poll numbers," Limbaugh said. "It will impact perceptions."

While political gurus told ABCNEWS.com that it's too soon to tell whether a droopy physical appearance will translate into drooping support at the polls, they said that gender bias is responsible for the media's willingness to openly discuss Clinton's Botox options while hardly mentioning Obama's worn-out appearance.

"Male candidates can get away with a few more wrinkles than women can," said Ben Shapiro, author of "Project President: Bad Hair and Botox on the Road to the White House." "Obama looks a lot more tired in the past few months, but it tends to show up more on Hillary."

In past elections, male contenders have been critiqued for their appearances, but not to the same degree as Clinton, added Shapiro.

In 2004, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., was forced to deny rumors that his Lincolnesque face looked suddenly youthful because of Botox injections. And his running mate, John Edwards, was derided by Republicans as the "Breck Girl of politics," a reference to a popular woman's shampoo and Edwards' notorious $400 haircut habit.

Campaign Fatigue Affects Every Candidate

ABC News' off-air reporters who spend months on the campaign trail said that every candidate has symptoms of campaign fatigue - even if Clinton's telltale signs are the only ones discussed.

Eloise Harper, who covers the Clinton campaign, said that at the end of the day the senator will start saying "loopy" or funny things she otherwise wouldn't, and will also begin to lose her voice.

After the Iowa caucuses, Obama lost his voice so badly that doctors advised him to take time off, according to ABC News' Sunlen Miller, who said he clearly went against the doctor's orders.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee often comes off planes with messed-up hair, evidence of in-flight naps, according to off-air reporter Kevin Chupka.

"One of the reasons Fred Thompson's campaign fell apart is because he didn't look like the guy on 'Law and Order,'" Shapiro said. "He looked a lot older and droopy."

"Women absolutely have it worse and Clinton is the most scrutinized because she's the most visible female candidate in the history of the United States," he said. "For me to be ugly is much easier. Clinton has to look matronly without looking beautiful, tough without looking harsh."

Will Looks Go Beyond Scrutiny and Enter Voting Booths?

Ferraro, Democratic presidential candidate Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984, said her experience on the campaign trail was very different from Clinton's.

"I was only doing it for four months. These people have been doing it over a year," Ferraro said. "I had all the trappings of a national campaign, my own plane and I stayed in the best hotels and had Secret Service - it's very different."

"You really have to have the drive and the energy and the desire to do something like this," added Ferraro, who has endorsed Clinton.

American University's Brewer said she hopes voters realize it's not a candidate's appearance, but rather their stance on issues that should matter most.

"This is not a beauty pageant and it becomes distracting when people begin to think all that matters is looks," Brewer said. "An unflattering photograph of Clinton or any other female candidate does not qualify her for being credible and willing to serve."

"I don't know if we can avoid [discussing it], but it would be better if everyone was taken on their merit - everything else is just a distraction," she said.




By EMILY FRIEDMAN, ABC News, January 28, 2008

- The magic number is 2,025: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton need this number of delegates to win the Democratic nomination. It represents a majority of the 4,049 delegates to the Democratic party convention in Colorado in August.

- The present delegate tally, including so-called super-delegates, stands at 230 for Clinton, 152 for Obama, and 61 for John Edwards.

- Obama has won a larger share of delegates through election following contests in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Candidates win a proportional share of delegates in each state. In South Carolina, Obama took 25 delegates, Clinton 12 and Edwards eight.

The two leading contenders for the democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have just 10 days to convince 22 different states holding primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday.

The two leading contenders for the democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have just 10 days to convince 22 different states holding primaries and caucuses on Super Tuesday, February 5. This day alone will determine the allegiance of more than 1,600 of the 2,025 delegates needed to capture the nomination at the party conference in Denver in August. Neither camp can afford wall-to-wall adverts and extensive campaigns in all 22 states, even with their legendary ability to raise funds. Unleashed from the confined space of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, the two candidates will now have to make hard choices in a race that has consistently defied pollsters and pundits alike.

Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.

Clinton stumbled into that minefield in a debate last fall and quickly backed off. First she suggested a New York proposal for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants might be reasonable. Then she denied endorsing the idea, and later came out against them.

Asked directly about the issue now, her California campaign spokesman said Clinton "believes the solution is to pass comprehensive immigration reform."

"Barack Obama has not backed down" on driver's licenses for undocumented people, said Federico Pena, a former Clinton administration Cabinet member and Denver mayor now supporting Obama. "I think when the Latino community hears Barack's position on such an important and controversial issue, they'll understand that his heart and his intellect is with Latino community."

Obama's intention is to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on what are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with earned legalization.

The Illinois senator is differentiating himself in three key areas: driver's licenses, a promise to take up immigration reform his first year in office, and his background as the son of an immigrant (his father was Kenyan) and a community organizer in Chicago.

Obama made the promise to Latino leaders to take up immigration reform in his first year after Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said his party might not raise the divisive issue again until the next president's second term, assuming a Democrat wins.

Latino leaders felt betrayed. For them, an immigration overhaul is a top priority in light of state and local crackdowns on illegal immigrants and federal raids in workplaces across the country.

Clinton has not made such a promise, saying only that she would make her best efforts.

"Those issues are huge," said Obama supporter and state Sen. Gilbert Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, vice chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus.

Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a direct warning on the driver's license issue in an analysis last month designed to guide Democrats through the treacherous immigration quagmire.

"The findings about driver's licenses are particularly notable," they said. Two-thirds of surveyed voters oppose them, the pollsters found, and the safety argument fails to dent the widespread conviction that granting a driver's license rewards illegal behavior.

But it will definitely work with Latinos, said John Trasvina, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. "Clinton and (Sen. John) Edwards have said no driver's licenses for unauthorized immigrants," Trasviña said. "Sen. Obama has said you get a driver's license if you know how to drive. And that message I think will resonate in the Latino community as we get closer to California."

The latest California Field Poll shows Clinton leads among Latinos 59 percent to 19 percent. That's bigger than the margin that handed her Nevada just over a week ago and about how well former President Bill Clinton did with Latinos in California when he won the state in 1992 and 1996, said poll director Mark DiCamillo.

One in 3 Californians is Latino, and although they make up just 14 percent of the electorate, they are 1 in 5 Democratic primary voters, according to the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.

"That's a very sizable group and a leading indicator in terms of younger and new voters," president Mark Baldassare said. "That's just the demographics of our state. They're a really crucial group."

Clinton's biggest asset is "El Presidente."

Thanks to Bill Clinton's presidency, during which he lavished attention on California, and her own eight years as first lady, Hillary Clinton enjoys enormous name recognition among Latinos.

She has also done her spadework. Clinton picked up early endorsements from leading Latinos such as Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and fabled farmworker organizer Dolores Huerta.

Clinton opened her new East Lost Angeles campaign office Saturday with three Latina members of Congress: Hilda Solis, Grace Napolitano and Lucille Roybal-Allard.

Obama has lined up several lesser-known officials, including Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose, chair of the Latino Legislative Caucus, as well as Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Cerritos, who split from her sister, Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Clinton backer from Garden Grove.

While Clinton has the backing of the United Farm Workers, Obama has picked up the endorsement of Unite Here, a heavily immigrant service workers union.

Both camps discount speculation of simmering racial hostility that might make some Latinos reluctant to vote for a black man.

"The familiarity with President Clinton has given her a very, very big lead from the beginning," said Maria Elena Durazo, secretary-treasurer for the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor who is campaigning for Obama.

If there were racial animosity, "obviously we would have to address that very directly," Durazo said. But mostly the response Durazo gets when she asks Latinos about Obama is, "Who is he? I don't know who he is," whereas with Clinton, the answer comes back, "We know Presidente Bill Clinton."

Maria Echaveste, a UC Berkeley law lecturer advising the Clinton campaign, agreed. "Everyone is so quick to jump on" the racial angle, she said. "But, frankly, I think the explanation is a much greater number of people know her and love Bill Clinton."

Huerta, a longtime Latina activist and co-founder of the United Farm Workers union, scoffed at Obama's credentials with Latinos. Clinton worked in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas as a young woman, she said, while Obama was missing in action during two major activist events in Chicago, once when Elvira Arellano sought church sanctuary to avoid deportation, and another time when two Latino men were falsely accused of murder.

"He's now trying to build a relationship, but it's just not there," Huerta said. In Nevada, casino workers dubbed themselves "Hilarios," she said, meaning Hillary supporters. "This came from the people."

With Obama, she said, "A lot of them would say, 'Senor como se llama?' They didn't know Obama's name."

Latinos also trust Clinton, Huerta said. "Support for her is not just support; it's enthusiastic support. In fact, I haven't seen anything like this since the Bobby Kennedy campaign back in '68."

Obama has begun airing campaign ads on Spanish-language TV and his supporters are working hard to promote Obama's activist Chicago roots, which Pena declared forged "a personal connection with Latinos that no other candidate has had."

Added Durazo, "He's the son of an immigrant, he's the son of a single mother who sacrificed a lot to make sure he got his education. All of those issues resonate with a hotel housekeeper, a construction worker, a day laborer. ... I have great hope that we're going to break through that gap in a big way."

Carolyn Lochhead, San Francisco Chronicle, January 28, 2008

WASHINGTON - Not all Democratic presidential convention delegates are awarded like door prizes in the primaries and caucuses being so fiercely contested around the country.

National party rules give special status to a select political group, including members of Congress, governors, members of the Democratic National Committee, past party officials, and former elected leaders like Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter and their vice presidents, Al Gore and Walter F. Mondale.

Officially designated unpledged party leader and elected official delegates, members of this high-powered group are usually known by a catchier term: superdelegates.

If the primary season does not settle the nomination fight and it turns into a hunt for individual delegates, it is conceivable that this group of politicians and party insiders could hold the balance in awarding the nomination.

"Then it gets interesting," said Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who is no longer a presidential candidate but retains a voice as a superdelegate.

At the Democratic National Caonvention in August, there would be 796 superdelegates, assuming the convention sustains the national party's penalties against Florida and Michigan for moving their primaries earlier in the year. In total, there are 4,049 Democratic delegates; to win the nomination, a candidate must secure 2,025 of them.

The superdelegates are the target of something of an invisible primary as the rival campaigns woo them for endorsements, for the political connections such public backing can bring and for their actual support at the convention, should it be needed. The superdelegates can also be influenced by the primaries. An aide to Senator Barbara Boxer of California said Ms. Boxer would cast her superdelegate vote for the winner of the California primary on Feb. 5.

Superdelegates were created after the 1980 election and were intended to restore some of the power over the nomination process to party insiders, keeping a lid on the zeal of party activists. They immediately came in handy for Mr. Mondale in his 1984 presidential bid, when they gave him a cushion over the upstart campaign of Gary Hart.

Since 1984, they have constituted 15 to 20 percent of the delegates at Democratic conventions, where they have historically supported the front-runner.

According to a recent telephone survey of superdelegates by The New York Times and CBS News, about one-third have expressed no preference in the 2008 race, about 25 percent support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and about 10 percent favor Senator Barack Obama. The remainder did not return calls or refused to comment.

But nothing in the rules binds any of the superdelegates, and they are free to shift positions, unlike pledged delegates who are committed to support a particular candidate at least through an initial convention vote. That creates a situation that political aficionados dream about: a deadlocked convention up for grabs until a bloc of superdelegates comes together and anoints a nominee.

Cue the confetti.

As dramatic as that might be, it seems unlikely to happen. Recent history shows that one candidate emerges from the primaries as the clear choice for the nomination, with the delegates to prove it. Most expect the same result this year.

But that does not stop some from imagining the possibilities. "It would be fun," said Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, who is supporting Mrs. Clinton. "Just like the old days. It would be a hoot to see it, just the floor politics."

By Carl Hulse, The New York Times, January 28, 2008

The impromptu debate, over light beers and dirty martinis, was at once mundane and remarkable. Provoked by a reporter, four middle-aged men at a Greenwich Village gay bar made fiery pitches for the Democratic presidential front-runners. Two backed Senator Barack Obama, one argued for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the fourth made an emotional plea for the cause of John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina.

"Edwards is the only one who really cares about the underdog," one of the men, Farid Martinez, 41, a clothing designer from Brooklyn, shouted above the din at the bar, the Monster, across from Sheridan Square. His friend Edmund Taylor, 37, disagreed, and nearly sputtered with rage: "The guy is a millionaire lawyer obsessed with his hair. Obama is the only one who can really transform this country."

What was notable about the exchange last week was what was not mentioned: the word 'gay."

For the first time in two decades, gay voters find themselves in an unusual, if happy, predicament. The three leading Democrats have staked out similar positions on issues that resonate with gay men and lesbians. Although none of the three candidates back gay marriage, they all support same-sex civil unions and say they would fight to repeal the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. And each of them says he or she would champion a federal anti-discrimination law that would protect lesbians and gay men.

"You would need a magnifying glass to see any real or substantive differences between the three candidates," said Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender civil rights group in New York.

The Republican field is a different story. All of the candidates hold opposite positions from the Democrats on those matters, and although gay rights have not dominated the Republican contest so far, if past elections are any guide, they will become an issue after the primaries, political strategists say.

For the moment, however, gay voters in New York are looking past the issues that have long guided them toward a candidate. They are talking about the conflict in Iraq, universal health care and whether it is more important to have a president with experience or exuberance.

"I think there's also a lot of excitement over having someone other than George Bush in the White House," said Matthew W. Carlin, president of the Stonewall Democratic Club, a gay political group that endorsed Senator Clinton in September. "And there's a feeling that people could be happy with any of the Democrats."

In what many gay leaders described as a fairly momentous occasion, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards showed up at a forum in August sponsored by the gay cable channel Logo and talked about the bravery of gay soldiers, adoption rights for same-sex couples and the problems faced by homeless gay teenagers. All three candidates employ gay strategists at the national and state levels, and in the two weeks leading up to the New York primary on Feb. 5, representatives from each campaign said, they planned to concentrate on the state's gay vote through mailings and rallies.

"We're going to get the word out best we can to show that Hillary has done more for the community than any other political figure in America," said Ethan Geto, a veteran Democratic consultant who is the Clinton campaign’s senior policy adviser on gay and lesbian concerns.

Although an exact count is elusive, pollsters estimate that lesbians and gay men make up between 5 and 13 percent of the Democratic vote in New York; even if the lower figure is accepted, it is a voting bloc worth courting. Ken Sherrill, a political scientist at Hunter College who studies the gay electorate, said lesbians and gay men are far more likely to be interested in politics than are mainstream voters. "This is a group of people whose lives are intimately affected by government policy," he said.

With about a week left before the primary, the gay vote appears to be mirroring the statewide electorate, which is leaning toward Senator Clinton but has yet to coalesce around one candidate. As one of the state's most powerful politicians, Mrs. Clinton enjoys widespread institutional support in the gay community; most of the city's gay Democratic groups have endorsed her, as have the state's highest-ranking openly gay officials, including the speaker of the New York City Council, Christine C. Quinn, and State Senator Thomas K. Duane of Manhattan. Last week, The New York Blade, a local gay newspaper, endorsed Mrs. Clinton as well.

But the campaigns of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Obama have been eagerly courting - and raising money from - gay men and lesbians, and both have put together lists of prominent gay supporters.

"Hillary has an advantage, but she certainly does not have a lock on the gay vote," said Matt Foreman, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, who has remained neutral.

The Democratic field stands in contrast to the Republican contenders. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, has not repudiated his suggestion, made in 1992, that people with AIDS be isolated from the general population. He and the other leading candidates - Senator John McCain of Arizona, former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York and Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor - are opposed to same-sex civil unions and any compromise that would allow gays to serve openly in the military.

Still, compared with the last two presidential elections, when gay rights were a call to arms among conservatives and an issue to be avoided by Democrats, many political experts agreed that this year, gay-related themes had been overshadowed by the economy, the war in Iraq and illegal immigration.

Much seems to have changed since 1988, when the Democratic nominee, Michael S. Dukakis, turned down an offer of a gay fund-raising campaign. Four years later, gay delegates threatened to storm out of the Democratic convention unless Bill Clinton mentioned gays in his acceptance speech. (He did.)

In an address last week honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. at a black church in Atlanta, Senator Obama made waves by lecturing the audience about homophobia. "We have scorned our gay brothers and sisters instead of embracing them," he said during the speech at Ebenezer Baptist Church, where Dr. King served as co-pastor with his father.

Joe Solmonese, the president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay lobbying group, said he thought Mr. Obama's speech was the first time a presidential candidate had brought up gay issues in front of a nongay audience without being prompted to do so. "This is dramatically refreshing," he said. "It's a great day when we can look at a field of candidates and determine that we are comfortable with all of them on gay rights and move on to other issues."

Still, many gay leaders said they are unhappy that none of the Democrats have embraced the cause of gay marriage, even if they understood the political calculus at play.

"There's a feeling that supporting gay marriage would be politically unacceptable," said Mr. Geto, the Clinton strategist. "Still, we've come a long way. Four years ago, civil unions created such a huge firestorm. I think things will be different one or two election cycles from now."

ALBANY - New York Republicans had a different scenario in mind for presidential hopeful and favorite son Rudolph Giuliani.

They believed Giuliani would win an early primary or two, at least Florida, and his return to New York for Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 would see his crowning as the leading GOP candidate for president.

But with polls showing him trailing in Florida and either tied or behind Arizona Sen. John McCain in New York, the picture is dimming for the former New York City mayor.

If he doesn't win Florida or finish a close second, some pundits question whether Giuliani's flagging campaign will even make it back to New York.

"He'd probably be out after Florida if he doesn't win," said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

And if Giuliani hangs on but can't win New York? "If that happens, it will be icing on a sour apple cake," Sabato said.

A USA Today/Gallup poll released Sunday, after surveys last week before Saturday's South Carolina primary results, showed New Yorkers favored McCain 42 percent to 24 percent for Giuliani. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney got 14 percent and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee 8 percent.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The picture is decisively different for New York's favorite daughter, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. She has a commanding lead over her foes in New York, remains in the lead in national polls and has built a strong presidential political operation in New York.

Clinton just beefed up her forces in the state in hopes of securing the 151 delegates up for grabs. Last week her campaign opened 35 offices here - including nine regional offices.

Some Clinton supporters said they hope she has built up enough of a cushion in New York so she can focus her efforts on the 21 other states that also will hold primaries on Super Tuesday.

"If she's way ahead, and I was in charge of her campaign, I wouldn't be necessarily advocating for her to come to New York," said Joseph Morelle, head of the Monroe County Democratic Committee and a state assemblyman.

Other candidates on the Democratic and Republican tickets aren't writing off New York, though.

Supporters for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are setting up offices around the state, and McCain's campaign is increasingly optimistic that he can win New York - especially upstate.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has a full slate of delegates here, while former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards also has a crop of delegates on the ballot.

Most of the state Republican establishment has lined up behind Giuliani, and some say it is too early to write off their candidate, who is running third in Florida behind McCain and Romney, according to recent polls.

If Giuliani has a strong showing Tuesday in Florida, where he has made it an all-or-nothing race, supporters said Super Tuesday victories in New York with its 101 delegates and in New Jersey and Connecticut could put him back in the mix.

"Yes, his strategy has always been based on Florida. The polls have been notoriously fickle and ever-changing throughout the primary process," said Matt Walter, state GOP spokesman.

"We're confident he has done what he needed to do in Florida and has presented a vision for the country that Florida voters will respond to."

But unlike Clinton or Obama, Giuliani has not set up offices outside New York City.

While Giuliani struggles, several prominent New York Republicans have turned to McCain, including former Sen. Alfonse D'Amato and former Congressman Jack Kemp.

Polls showing McCain with a double-digit lead over Giuliani in New York indicate the disparity is even greater upstate. That's why McCain's New York chairman, Ed Cox, a Manhattan lawyer, was traveling in western New York last week to build a "ground game."

Cox, a son-in-law of late President Richard Nixon, said he's working on bringing McCain to western New York. He said McCain's success in New York is attributed in part to voters seeing him winning or leading in other primary states and viewing him as the most viable national candidate.

"We're winning here in New York by winning elsewhere," Cox said. "Now when the campaign gets to New York we'll have the organization in place."

Obama supporters also are establishing a presence in the state, setting up offices across upstate and in New York City. At the opening of an office in Albany last week, supporters said they want to make sure Obama's campaign is heard.

"We want to ensure he gets enough votes so his message is resonating through the state, so he can get delegate representation in New York," said Carolyn McLaughlin, an Albany Common Council member.

"In spite of the fact this is Hillary's home state - underscore that - we believe the message of Barack Obama has to get out."

In New York, Obama is leading Clinton among black voters by 67 percent to 26 percent, according to a Marist College poll last week.

Yet overall, Clinton leads Obama 48 percent to 32 percent among likely Democratic voters, the poll found.

"We are gratified by the outpouring of support for Senator Clinton across New York, but we're taking nothing for granted and working hard for every vote," said Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff.

By Joseph Spector, Gannett News Service, January 28, 2008

CHAPPAQUA, N.Y. -- People who live in this small town tucked into the hills above New York City adhere to an unofficial code of conduct: When you drive past the Dutch colonial on Old House Lane, don't rubberneck, slow down or pull over to the side of the road. Don't gawk at the Secret Service officers sipping coffee downtown. Don't ask Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton or former president Bill Clinton, your neighbors, for autographs.

"We don't look at it like we live in Clinton's backyard," said Chappaqua resident Marty Cohen, 53. "We look at it like she lives in ours."

Some places go out of their way to celebrate their hometown presidential candidates, but not Chappaqua. The 9,000 or so residents revel in their spacious houses and their easy commutes to Manhattan and their public high school that sends 99 percent of its graduates on to four-year colleges. They don't need Hillary Clinton.

Trouble is, the senator from New york needs them.

The state will hold its crucial presidential primary Feb. 5, and Clinton's campaign is counting on loyal constituents to deliver a resounding victory. Early polls indicate that Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in New York by as much as 25 percentage points, but the Obama campaign is looking for targets of opportunity, and Clinton's home town may be one of them.

Some people are ambivalent about Clinton; others resent her for moving into the area in 1999 to establish New York residency before declaring her senatorial campaign six weeks later. After winning that election, Clinton has spent much of her time out of town.

Sensing a possible disconnect, a grass-roots organization of Obama volunteers has amplified its efforts here and in surrounding Westchester County, opening a local office and canvassing train stations. "With grass-roots and organizational support for Obama growing by the day," campaign spokeswoman Amy Brundage said, "our campaign in New York is strong going into February 5th."

Obama volunteers in Westchester believe they can overcome Clinton's advantages in New York by outworking her, which is why one night last week Ashley Craig said goodbye to her three children, told a babysitter how to warm chicken, carrots and peas in the oven, put on makeup and a pink ski jacket, and rushed out into the 18-degree cold.

Craig, a former Republican, had never volunteered for a candidate before this election. She saw Obama speak in New York with a few friends last year, studied his positions and decided that he could unite the country better than Clinton, whom Craig describes as a "good senator." On a whim, Craig called Obama's New York office late in October to see if it could use help.

Three months later, she leads an active team of more than 200 Westchester volunteers and sometimes stays up until 1 a.m. to answer hundreds of e-mails. "I've had to give up all the little things because everything is Obama now," Craig said. "Tennis, sleep, friends -- all that had to go for the cause."

On this night, Craig had arranged to meet a handful of other volunteers at a train station in Hastings-on-Hudson. She had already canvassed a dozen other train stations, targeting commuters, and repetition had made these outings routine. Craig grabbed a box of Obama informational brochures and bumper stickers from her trunk and walked to the center of the platform to join five other volunteers. They fanned out across the station each time a train arrived, one volunteer positioned in front of each possible exit, and handed Obama packets to any outstretched hand.

The black vote was key to his decisive win Saturday. To be competitive in the Feb. 5 sweepstakes, he'll need a broader coalition of independents, young people, and affluent whites, analysts say.

WASHINGTON - With his victory in the South Carolina primary Saturday, Sen. Barack Obama offered convincing proof of his ability to appeal to black voters. But to stay on course for the Democratic nomination when 22 states vote on Feb. 5, analysts say, Senator Obama will need to reach further and wider.

African-Americans are a big part of the Democratic vote in Georgia, Alabama, and a few other Super Tuesday states. But experts say Obama's fortunes on Feb. 5 will hinge on the groups of voters responsible for his only other win, in Iowa: independents, college students, and well-educated and affluent whites.

Also critical, experts say, will be inland states like Kansas, Colorado, and Minnesota, where many voters are wary of candidates, like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are seen as too partisan. Obama has already picked up a string of heartland endorsements, including those of Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Claire McCaskill of Missouri.

Senator Clinton, Obama's chief rival, has built her Super Tuesday strategy around four states that account for 44 percent of the delegates up for grabs that day: New York, which she represents in the Senate; New Jersey, next door; Arkansas, where she was first lady; and California, where the largest cache of delegates are in play and where polls show her with a strong lead.

Obama, however, is taking a more piecemeal approach. Because votes in most Democratic contests are awarded proportionally, he will need to make precision strikes within states where Clinton is strong. Cities with many blacks, like New York, and liberal enclaves, like the San Francisco Bay Area, are on his list of targets, as are independents in New Jersey and California.

He is looking for a rout in his delegate-rich home state of Illinois. But he is also courting voters in six states caucusing on Feb. 5 - Kansas, Minnesota, Colorado, Alaska, North Dakota, and Idaho - where an aggressive turnout drive could reprise his success in Iowa.

"In many of these states, our opponents are not engaged in any organizing," Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, blogged earlier this month. "We firmly believe you cannot build a caucus operation in a matter of four weeks, so we are at a decided advantage."

If Obama captures traditionally "red" heartland states on Feb. 5, he will no doubt argue that they reflect his ability to unite voters across the ideological spectrum against a Republican foe in November.

His first campaign stops after his victory Saturday were Georgia and Alabama, states where blacks make up at least 40 percent of the Democratic vote. Clinton was headed for Tennessee, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

A decisive win in South Carolina

In South Carolina Saturday, Obama defeated Clinton 55 percent to 27 percent. A little more than half the voters were black, and Obama took about 80 percent of their vote. Obama drew nearly one-quarter of the white vote, with Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards about evenly splitting the rest.

According to surveys of voters exiting the polls, Obama beat Clinton among both men and women; among voters in every age group except those over 65; and among nonblack voters under 30.

Edwards placed third overall, at 18 percent, a damaging setback in his native state. "I think the coffin door will be shut on him in South Carolina," says Prof. Thomas Whalen of Boston University, author of "A Higher Purpose: Profiles in Presidential Courage." "That's his backyard, and if he can't win there, forget it."

Mr. Edwards, who has yet to win a primary, vowed Saturday night to stay in the race.

Obama's victory showed that the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3 were not a fluke.

But Obama could be hurt if opponents - or the news media - portray South Carolina as a demographic quirk, analysts say. Critics accused former President Bill Clinton of playing racial politics at a recent campaign stop for his wife there, when he said voters were picking candidates on "race or gender" and "that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here."

"Obama went into South Carolina as a candidate speaking to independents, to whites, speaking to America across the divides - that was kind of his magic," says Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota. But if the results are perceived as racially polarized, Dr. Jacobs says, "it could well be that South Carolina is a race that really winds up narrowing a very broadly appealing campaign."

But others say Obama, the son of a black father from Kenya and a white mother from Kansas, drew enough of the white vote in a conservative Southern state to defuse those questions.

Recent shift in the black vote

Of greater significance ahead of Super Tuesday, say analysts, was the evidence Saturday of Obama's deep support among African-Americans. Blacks are a key Democratic constituency, accounting for roughly 1 in 5 primary-goers nationally. Until the climb in Obama's poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire in December, most were supporters of Clinton.

"When Obama started this campaign, African-Americans were considered to be more in Hillary's camp than in his camp," says David Bositis, a senior political analyst for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, a Washington, D.C., group with a focus on black issues. With a decisive victory in South Carolina, "he can in effect, say, 'OK, I've made the case with African-Americans. Now it's time for me to concentrate on these other voting groups.' "

His tallest hurdle, say analysts, will be the traditional Democrats with whom Clinton enjoys a large advantage. "He needs to run better among older voters, more blue-collar and middle-class voters, and more downscale white voters," says Philip Klinkner, a government professor at Hamilton College in Clinton, N.Y. "That's where he's losing."

Clinton leads in national polls of Democratic voters. But if Feb. 5 fails to crown a nominee, a state-by-state war of attrition for delegates could grind on into the spring, say political observers.

"We've now moved into the phase where it's not really as much about momentum as it is the delegate count," says Jacobs. "If in 1992, the phrase was, 'It's the economy, stupid,' it's now, 'It's the delegates, stupid.' "

By Ariel Sabar, The Christian Science Monitor, January 28, 2008

Democrats inside and outside the Clinton campaign on Sunday debated and in some cases bemoaned the degree to which former President Bill Clinton's criticism of Senator Barack Obama last week had inflicted lasting damage on his wife's presidential candidacy.

"I think his harsh style hurt Senator Clinton - it polarized the campaign and polarized the electorate, and it also made it harder for Senator Clinton's positive message to break through," said Celinda Lake, a Democratic strategist and pollster who is not affiliated with any of the candidates.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign team, seeking to readjust after her lopsided defeat in South Carolina and amid a sense among many Democrats that Mr. Clinton had injected himself clumsily into the race, will try to shift the former president back into the sunnier, supportive-spouse role that he played before Mrs. Clinton's loss in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton advisers said.

But Democrats said it was not clear whether the effects of Mr. Clinton's high profile could be brushed away by having him modulate his campaign style. They said Mr. Clinton had upset some of the central themes of Mrs. Clinton's campaign, including her appeal to women and her assertions that her time in the White House during the 1990s amounted to vital experience rather than a link to a presidency defined as much by scandal and partisan divisions as by its successes on fronts like the economy.

Despite Mrs. Clinton's months-long efforts to build a base of support among women, Clinton advisers said they were concerned that her husband's recent prominence may have dampened her appeal as a strong female leader. Some advisers said they feared as much after Mr. Obama won 54 percent of the vote from women in South Carolina, including 22 percent of white women and 78 percent of black women, according to polls.

Echoing private remarks by some Clinton advisers, Linda L. Fowler, a professor of government at Dartmouth College, said in an interview that she believed Mr. Clinton's attacks on Mr. Obama had hurt Mrs. Clinton. "Voters don't like the idea of a co-presidency, and he became so high profile that he made people begin to see this as a possible co-presidency," Ms. Fowler said. "It's even more problematic because she's a woman. It looks like she either needs him to fight the big battles for her, or she can't keep the big dog on the porch."

After a week of all-out campaigning by Mr. Clinton in South Carolina, where Mrs. Clinton came in a distant second to Mr. Obama, there is also fresh concern among some advisers that Mr. Clinton's visibility has dented her argument that she has the best experience for the job.

These advisers expressed concern that the specter of a co-candidacy and co-presidency could bring back elements of the Clinton history that many Democrats would just as soon leave behind.

Representative Charles B. Rangel of New York, a leading supporter of Mrs. Clinton, said on Sunday that Mr. Clinton was going to pull back. "He's got to," Mr. Rangel said. "The focus has got to get back on Hillary. For all that he cares about his wife, this has to be her election to win, and it's become too much about his role."

Yet some advisers expressed concern that Mr. Clinton might prove difficult to rein in, citing the latest furor over the weekend after he compared Mr. Obama's victories to Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988 on Saturday, though Mr. Jackson did not approach the wide margin of Mr. Obama's win.

Advisers said Mr. Clinton's remark was an off-the-cuff reference, but it was debated on the Sunday news shows and in the blogosphere as a possible effort by the Clinton camp to diminish Mr. Obama's success in South Carolina as simply the result of a black candidate drawing support from a heavily black electorate.

Mr. Obama, asked about the remark on the ABC program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," mostly sought to praise Mr. Jackson - a supporter of his - while decrying the injection of race into the campaign. "Jesse Jackson ran historic races in 1984 and 1988, and there's no doubt that that set a precedent for African-Americans running for the highest office in the land," Mr. Obama said. "I think people want change. I think they want to get beyond some of the racial politics that, you know, has been so dominant in the past."

Mr. Clinton's ability to be a distraction was evident on Sunday as reporters repeatedly asked Mrs. Clinton about her husband's role in the campaign and his comments about Mr. Jackson, which she characterized as benign.

"I think everyone who knows Bill knows that he's both a great student of politics and history, but he's also somebody who brought our country together," Mrs. Clinton told reporters in Memphis.

Clinton advisers said that Mr. Clinton would continue to campaign nearly full time for his wife in the days leading up to the Feb. 5 primaries and caucuses in 22 states, yet they added that he would take a more positive tone.

They said his role would be akin to his effort before the Iowa caucuses, when he highlighted Mrs. Clinton's record and her policy ideas, and was used in part to build huge crowds on college campuses rather than attack Mr. Obama. (It was after her third-place finish in Iowa that Mr. Clinton turned much more aggressive.) The campaign announced Sunday night that Mr. Clinton would speak on Tuesday at a college in New Jersey, which has a Feb. 5 primary.

"Bill Clinton is going to continue to campaign on behalf of his wife and tell her story and make his case about why she should be president," said Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's communications director.

Mr. Wolfson said the campaign would turn its focus to the Florida primary, which is Tuesday, although that primary is considered little more than a beauty contest.

And Mrs. Clinton will not campaign in Florida - honoring a pledge that the Democratic candidates took after the state moved up its primary date against the national party's wishes - though her campaign said she would hold an event in Florida on Tuesday night as the primary results come in.

SARASOTA, Fla. - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said yesterday she was going to Florida to assure Democrats that "their voices are heard" and to underscore her commitment to seeing the state's delegation seated at the national convention.

Though the Democratic presidential candidates largely have heeded the national party's request that they not campaign publicly in Florida, Clinton said it's time to pay attention to voters there who are showing heavy interest in tomorrow's primary. Early voting is under way and drawing strong interest, she said.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have already voted in Florida and I want them to know I will be there to be part of what they have tried to do to make sure their voices are heard," Clinton said in Memphis, Tenn., before heading for Florida.

Clinton worked overtime to deflect attention from her loss, hoping to claim credit for a strong showing in Florida when little was actually at stake. No delegate will be allocated, and none of the candidates have made an effort in the state.

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

For the first time in decades, thanks to an early primary and volatile races in both parties, California is at the center of the action. It's the biggest prize on Super Tuesday, the 22-state tidal wave of primaries and caucuses Feb. 5.

Hundreds of delegates are at stake here - nearly 22% of those needed to win the Democratic nomination and 15% of those needed by Republicans - as well as bragging rights and a claim to significant momentum.

"We're all a little bit startled," says Dan Schnur, a California-based GOP strategist. "The fact that both nominations are going to be seriously contested here is very exciting."

Campaigns court voters here with an intensity usually reserved for small leadoff states in the nomination season. There are ads on TV, brochures in mailboxes, advocates on the phone, sometimes even a canvasser at the door or a candidate down the block. Presidential hopefuls often spend time plumbing this wealthy state for money, but this year they also are squeezing in rallies, roundtables and coffee-shop visits.

California is an outsized national presence, whether you're talking statistics (36 million residents and the eighth-largest economy in the world), problems (traffic and natural disasters), glitz (celebrities), agenda-setting (taxes, immigration and global warming) or Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's macho, movie-star personality.

The state poses outsized challenges for candidates, too. It costs millions of dollars to blanket California with TV ads, making for tough spending decisions. The state's sheer vastness - more than 24,000 precincts across nearly 156,000 square miles - means organizing on a massive scale.

Candidates also must reach out to voters who speak Spanish and independents who often don't vote. And they must reach out to everyone early. In a process that's been going on since Jan. 7, up to half the votes in the primary will be cast in advance, through the mail. One in five voters in each party have voted, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.

The new poll, conducted Wednesday through Saturday, showed that Arizona Sen. John McCain led former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, 35%-27% on the GOP side. The poll is a snapshot that could change. Each candidate hopes to rocket into California and other contests with a win Tuesday in Florida.

Among Democrats, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton led Illinois Sen. Barack Obama here by 12 percentage points, 47%-35%, fueled by a 20-point lead among women. The snapshot was taken before Obama's huge win Saturday in South Carolina. He's looking to capitalize on that here and stay competitive in the delegate count. A Clinton victory would give her campaign new energy.

For the past dozen years, California presidential primaries have been in March, after voters elsewhere have crowned nominees or sent them well on their way. Political veterans reach back 40 years or more trying to recall when the state last helped pick a ticket.

California Republicans dealt a fatal blow to Nelson Rockefeller by choosing Barry Goldwater in 1964 and helped Ronald Reagan nearly block President Gerald Ford's nomination in 1976.

For Democrats, "this is probably the most spirited primary we've had since McGovern-Humphrey in 1972 or Bobby (Kennedy) and Eugene McCarthy in 1968," says Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party.

The lively contests and earlier primary date have produced "historically unprecedented interest" by both voters and donors, says Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California.

Candidates are raising more money here than in any other state - $51.3 million as of Sept. 30, finance reports show. They also are commiserating about the economy, including skyrocketing home foreclosures, and becoming educated about California issues such as the Hollywood writers' strike.

When McCain visited last fall at the beginning of the strike, says Parneille Walker, 30, a writer's assistant from Van Nuys, "he didn't know anything about it. The next time he came back, he was like, 'The writers' strike. It should end.' He revisited and changed his tune. A lot of other ones followed."

Winners won't take all

California's return to the spotlight is somewhat diminished by the crush of states voting Feb. 5 and by mathematical reality: No candidate will be able to lock up a nomination that night.

Even so, California offers the most convention delegates - 441 for Democrats, 173 for Republicans. Some party and elected officials have automatic delegate slots, but most delegates will be awarded proportionally on Super Tuesday, meaning a candidate can collect support toward a nomination by targeting certain congressional districts or even neighborhoods.

"That has a dramatic impact," says state GOP Chairman Ron Nehring. "Even if they're not running first statewide, candidates still have an opportunity to pick up delegates. It's more likely that they'll compete here."

The environment for that competition is one of mounting economic anxiety. Foreclosures rose to a record high of 31,676 statewide in the last three months of 2007.

In the latest USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, 39% of Democrats and 35% of Republicans said the economy was the most important issue. The No. 2 concern divided by party: One-quarter of Democrats said the Iraq war, about one-quarter of Republicans said illegal immigration.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns are the best financed in either party and the only ones on TV here. Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group says Obama had spent $1.1 million and Clinton $800,000 as of Wednesday, not including Obama's $300,000 national buy on CNN and MSNBC.

Other signs of California's elevated status:

- Clinton has been here 15 times since she became a candidate, spending the equivalent of about a month in the state. Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani racked up the same amount of time over a dozen visits, but it hasn't translated into much support.

- Obama and Clinton organize neighborhood by neighborhood. Obama has a plan created by a veteran of the United Farm Workers union. Clinton has more than 10,000 volunteers. Both campaigns aimed to call 100,000 voters over the weekend.

- Democrats compete for high-profile endorsements. Clinton has Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, director Rob Reiner and actress Sally Field. Obama has actresses Halle Berry and Scarlett Johansson and labor leader Maria Elena Durazo.

Former senator John Edwards, who had 10% support in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, boasts the Service Employees International Union, actors Kevin Bacon, Danny Glover, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon and singer Bonnie Raitt.

- Big names on the GOP side include comedian Dennis Miller for Giuliani, former secretary of State George Shultz for McCain and eBay CEO Meg Whitman for Romney.

Latinos, independents are key

The outcome in both parties will be shaped heavily by independents and Latinos.

Nearly one in five voters here are registered as "decline to state," or unaffiliated with a party. Independents have helped Obama in the Iowa and Nevada caucuses and were key to McCain wins in New Hampshire and South Carolina.

But Republicans here have barred independents from their primary, which could drive them to the Democratic contest. That's a potential advantage for Obama, particularly since many independents have what Baldassare calls a "post-partisan" attitude that meshes with Obama's unity message.

Kam Kuwata, a Democratic strategist, says the challenge is that many independents are not habitual primary voters and some aren't aware they can participate. "If you think you can get independents, you'd better shake the tree. Independents don't automatically know they can vote," he says.

The absence of independents in the GOP primary is problematic for McCain. "He's going to have to reach deeper into the Republican base," says Schnur, who worked for McCain's 2000 campaign but is neutral now. That will be hard, he says, because illegal immigration "is a bigger issue here than anywhere else they've been so far."

McCain alienated the party base last year by backing earned citizenship for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants in the USA. He now says the public has made it clear a border clampdown should come first.

Pollsters estimate that Latinos in California are 14% to 20% of the electorate and up to one-quarter of Democratic primary voters. They favored Clinton more than 2 to 1 over Obama in the USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. In Nevada, polls showed she won Hispanics 3 to 1.

Torres attributes Clinton's support to Latin America's "matriarchal society," which makes it "natural to gravitate to a woman, mother, wife who offers strong leadership." Others say it has more to do with the Clintons' record. "She's benefiting from the work that she and her husband did a decade ago" on issues such as health care and housing, Villaraigosa says.

Obama supporters say the gap stems in part from his relative unfamiliarity. Friday, he launched a Spanish-language ad about his life on Telemundo and Univision in Los Angeles. "I fervently believe that he can make up ground among Latino voters once they get to know him," says U.S. Rep. Linda SAnchez, D-Calif. She has endorsed Obama; her sister Loretta Sanchez, also a member of Congress, is a Clinton backer.

No matter how much love the candidates lavish on California, voters here will never see retail politicking the way it's done in Iowa and New Hampshire. That disturbs Republican Jack Minden, 52, an architect from Sherman Oaks.

It's charming that "every Iowan gets to have a presidential candidate over to dinner twice," Minden says, but it's also sad: "California is 13% of the whole country and the tail wags the dog." He hopes GOP candidates show up this week in a neighborhood near him.

Before heading for a fundraiser in Pacific Palisades this month, Obama appeared at an "economic roundtable" in Mimi Vitello's sunny backyard in Van Nuys. It was an intimate event - the candidate, four voters, 13 TV cameras and about 50 reporters and photographers.

The small group around the white plastic table described financial worries and hardships: an exploding credit-card interest rate, a home being refinanced to pay off four credit cards used to pay rent on a business, Vitello's interest-only home loan that could outrun her fixed income as a nurse. Obama, his jacket off and his sleeves rolled up, listened carefully and described how his plans would help.

Later, Obama answered a question for the cameras about his own finances: two credit cards, both paid off. But "these stories are familiar to me," he said, because he and his wife borrowed so much money for college and law school: "Our combined student loan debt was higher than our mortgage. It took us 10 years to pay that off."

After everyone had cleared out, Vitello, 52, was as cagey as any old hand in Iowa or New Hampshire. "I'm a political skeptic," she said. "I have a lot of thinking to do, still."

By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY, January 27, 2008

JONESBORO, Ark. (AP) - Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton stumped on behalf of her mother's presidential campaign Sunday, talking policy while making no mention of Hillary Clinton's loss in South Carolina the day before.

The daughter of former President Clinton and the New York senator did not take questions from reporters at the event, but did answer queries on both the political and personal.

"We need to get control of our economy," Clinton told a crowd of nearly 250 at Arkansas State University. "My mother is in favor of the stimulus and we need to get hold of the home crisis."

Clinton stressed her mother was the right choice for voters in Arkansas, who cast ballots Feb. 5 along with other "Super Tuesday" states. Her mother already set up a campaign office in Little Rock and has plans to return to the state Wednesday.

Clinton did not mention how Democratic rival Barack Obama beat her mother by a more than 2-to-1 margin in South Carolina. However, she made a passing reference to the Illinois senator when discussing the idea of universal health care coverage.

"I am proud that it is part of the Democratic platform," Clinton said. "Senator (John) Edwards and my mother want to mandate that everyone have health care. Senator Obama wants to somewhat mandate it."

Clinton said she does not want to follow in her parents' footsteps and does not know who her mother would select as a running mate if she wins the Democratic nomination. The 27-year-old also noted the economic impact of the ongoing war in Iraq.

"There is $330 million a day spent on Iraq," she said. "My mom wants to bring the soldiers home from Iraq."

The Associated Press, January 27, 2008

Toni Morrison, the Nobel Prize-winning author who famously declared Bill Clinton America's "first black president," has decided to endorse the man who really would earn that designation, Barack Obama. Alongside that good news for the Illinois senator from the world of high letters, though, came an unwelcome word from the world of low politics: Tony Rezko is headed to jail.

Morrison announced her decision in a adulatory letter to Obama, now posted on the candidate's web site. She tells Obama that her admiration for him has little to do with his biracial background -- "I would not support you if that was all you had to offer or because it might make me 'proud'" -- just as her liking for Hillary Clinton had little to do with her gender. Instead, she writes that she sees Obama as the right person for a potentially transformative moment in American history. "This opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it," she writes.

Morrison -- the author of "Beloved," "Jazz," and "The Bluest Eye," among other books -- couches her praise in her characteristically lush style. "In thinking carefully about the strengths of the candidates, I stunned myself when I came to the following conclusion: that in addition to keen intelligence, integrity and a rare authenticity, you exhibit something that has nothing to do with age, experience, race or gender and something I don't see in other candidates. That something is a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom," she writes. "Our future is ripe, outrageously rich in its possibilities. Yet unleashing the glory of that future will require a difficult labor, and some may be so frightened of its birth they will refuse to abandon their nostalgia for the womb."

She concludes: "There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time."

Morrison's memorable labeling of Bill Clinton came in a New Yorker magazine article defending him against the investigations by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, a pursuit that Morrison said evoked past persecution of black men by white authorities.

"African-American men seemed to understand it right away. Years ago, in the middle of the Whitewater investigation, one heard the first murmurs: white skin notwithstanding, this is our first black President," she wrote. "Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, Clinton displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas. And when virtually all the African-American Clinton appointees began, one by one, to disappear, when the President's body, his privacy, his unpoliced sexuality became the focus of the persecution, when he was metaphorically seized and bodysearched, who could gainsay these black men who knew whereof they spoke?"

Back in the mundane world of campaign "bundlers" and $2,300 checks, Obama must contend with additional attention on his past history with Rezko, following today's report that the Chicago developer and dealmaker was arrested by federal agents this morning after having his bail revoked for unclear reasons, shortly before he is to stand trial on charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering. Rezko has helped raise tens of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns over the years, was represented in his real estate dealings by Obama's law firm, and was involved in an unusual real estate purchase with Obama in which he bought a property next door to the house Obama bought, then sold him a strip of the first lot.

Obama has tried for months to put his relationship with Rezko behind him, saying it was a mistake for him to join Rezko in the real estate deal, that he was unaware of Rezko's alleged unsavory activities when he accepted his fundraising help, and that he has never done Rezko any favors in return for his support. His campaign has already returned $85,000 in campaign funds linked to Rezko or his associates dating back to Obama's 2004 Senate campaign, and following recent reports of possible additional Rezko-linked contributions, it has vowed to give back any more tainted money it learns about.

By Alec MacGillis, The Washington Post, January 28, 2008

A few months ago, a colleague posed this question: "Let's say the Democratic race comes down to Obama and Clinton. Who do you think could win?"

"Obama," I answered, without hesitating. "Definitely."

My co-worker, who happens to be a black man, looked at me as if I were crazy. And then he told me I was crazy. "You think this country would elect a black man before a white woman?"

After Obama's victory in Iowa, the same colleague came back.

"When I'm wrong," he said, shaking his head, "I'm wrong."

He was surprised, he told me, not by Barack Obama's ascendancy, but by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton. I wasn't surprised at all, I told him. But I was royally ticked off.

From Day 1 of this seemingly endless election cycle, it has been clear that the media don't have any idea how to handle Clinton. She was first lady for eight years, so it's not as if we haven't seen her before. It's just that we've never seen her like this: a candidate on her own terms, the equal of any man, with a real shot at the presidency.

And so we did what we've always done to women who overstep their bounds: We picked her apart, piece by piece, ignoring the substance and pouncing on the superficial. We sniped about her hair, her laugh, her pantsuits, her voice (which Chris Matthews, MSNBC's resident blowhard, likened to "nails on a blackboard").

In other words, we resorted to every cheap trick in the book. And virtually no one called us on it. Gloria Steinem wrote a blistering Op-Ed on the subject for The New York Times. And several women's groups demanded apologies from Matthews for his numerous idiotic comments. But for the most part, the onslaught has gone unchecked, because women have remained largely silent.

Which is weird, when you consider that we Americans love finding commonalities with our politicians.

Part of this means we want a juicy, identifiable, personal story from our candidates (just make sure it's not too juicy). Have you conquered an addiction? Risen from poverty? Congratulations! We want to hear all about it (as long as it doesn't involve sex).

We want to applaud our politicians, but we also love to commiserate with them. Our current president, for example, was a decidedly mediocre student who drank too much and probably dabbled in some very illegal drugs. Then he got married, became a father and found Jesus. His life is the classic, universally appealing redemption story, and his admitted weaknesses make him, despite his wealth and privilege, more accessible -- identifiable -- to anyone who has ever screwed up.

Following this line of logic (as it were), John McCain becomes the shoo-in for the veterans' vote, Mitt Romney wins over anyone who has ever been accused of either being in a cult or overusing hair product, and Mike Huckabee has the support of all the country's jolly, Chuck Norris-obsessed homophobes.

Meanwhile, across the aisle, identity politics have proven kinder to Obama than to Clinton. Black voters, invigorated by his surprise win in Iowa and his strong showing in New Hampshire, have rallied to Obama's side. National polls show 60 percent of black voters prefer him, while 30 percent favor Clinton.

Women simply aren't showing Clinton the same kind of love. Women older than 45 (regardless of race) feel conflicted about Clinton's candidacy; they say they want to support her because she's a woman, and they appreciate firsthand the challenges she has faced, but they're not totally sold. Some cite Bill fatigue, or say they worry that less forward-thinking countries won't respect a woman president. And sometimes you can hear resentment in their voices: Why am I expected to support a woman candidate just because she's a woman?

Here's the thing: You're not. But you are expected not to dismiss her outright because you think you know her. Whatever Clinton was as first lady is a far cry from what she has proven herself to be -- good and otherwise -- as a U.S. senator and attorney.

Let's go back to those comments -- about Clinton's hair, voice, wardrobe -- and imagine if the tone had been racist rather than sexist, and they had been directed at Obama. I have enough faith in this country to believe that the outcry would have been loud and swift.

Any outcry from Clinton, or on her behalf, regarding the persistently sexist tone of so-called political commentary, has been brushed aside, dismissed as political correctness run amok, or as the whining of feminists (the second-dirtiest word in American politics, just behind "liberal").

And that leaves us with a lot of questions and no answers: Is Clinton taking it on the chin from the media because she's a Clinton, or because she's a woman? Does Obama owe what's been a relatively smooth ride to his considerable political acumen or to the fact that he's a man? Should we consider the possibility that his opponents (and the media) tread lightly in his presence because they fear charges of racism -- far more than charges of sexism?

Unless John Edwards pulls out an upset of epic proportions, Democrats will put forward a historic candidate in November. And it may be that Clinton will be that candidate, having successfully quieted the pervasive, insidious sexism we have allowed to overwhelm our cultural vocabulary. But it seems more likely that the country will celebrate another, equally inspiring milestone, while conceding a point to Gloria Steinem and Shirley Chisholm: In politics, gender remains a more profound obstacle than race.




By Jessica Reaves, Chicago Tribune, January 27, 2008

Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, issued a statement Sunday in support of Clinton.

"I respect Caroline and Teddy's decision, but I have made a different choice," she said.

Caroline Kennedy endorsed Barak Obama's bid for presidency and Senator Ted Kennedy is reported ready to endorse Obama Monday.

"While I admire Senator Obama greatly, I have known Hillary Clinton for over 25 years and have seen firsthand how she gets results," continued Kennedy Townsend.

"As a woman, leader and person of deep convictions, I believe Hillary Clinton would make the best possible choice for president."

San Francisco Sentinel, January 27, 2008

Two new USA TODAY/Gallup Polls today show John McCain and Hillary Clinton leading the Republican and Democratic fields in New York and California. The polls were conducted Wednesday through Saturday; margin of errror is plus or minus 4 percentage points in each state, for each party.

California Republican results:
Arizona Sen. John McCain 35%
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney 27%
Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee 12%
Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani 11%
Texas Rep. Ron Paul 5%
Former diplomat Alan Keyes 1%

California Democratic results:
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton 47%
Illinois Sen. Barack Obama 35%
former North Carolina senator John Edwards 10%

New York Republican results:
McCain 42%
Giuliani 24%
Romney 14%
Huckabee 8%
Paul 5%
Keyes 1%

New York Democratic results:
Clinton 56%
Obama 28%
Edwards 10%

Cautionary note: These polls are snapshots and both parties' nomination contests are volatile. Interviews in the Democratic race were conducted before Obama's big win last night in the South Carolina primary. The GOP race could shift after the Florida primary on Tuesday.

USA Today, January 27, 2008

Many white Americans never understood black America's love affair with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Although the meteoric rise of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama - the new darling of many blacks, especially the young - has dampened the Clinton amour, the old affair still has enough fire for a brief examination.

For millions of blacks, Bill Clinton was and is an "honorary" black. And, in the famous words of Nobel laureate Toni Morrison, he is the "first black president."

Throughout Bill Clinton's eight years in the White House, his poll numbers among blacks averaged 90 percent, at one time soaring to 93 percent. He consistently topped the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Gen. Colin Powell in popularity. Even after he dropped his nomination of Lani Guinier for attorney general, fired Jocelyn Elders as surgeon general and "changed welfare as we know it," he enjoyed high approval.

To the dismay of many whites, the overwhelming majority of blacks stood by Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment crisis. They smelled white hypocrisy, identifying with a persecuted friend.

"Serious as adultery is, it is not a national catastrophe," Morrison wrote at the time, nicely capturing the black mind-set. "Women leaving hotels following trysts with their extramarital lovers tell pollsters they abominate Mr. Clinton's behavior. Relaxed men fresh from massage parlors frown earnestly into the camera at the mere thought of such malfeasance."

Blacks always believed that Whitewater was, as Hillary Clinton often said, part of a vast right-wing conspiracy to bring down the president. Blacks resented the attacks from the right wing, and they resented white conservatives' mean-spirited lectures on character, principles and family values.

On the plus side, Bill Clinton supported policies, such as narrowly tailored affirmative action programs, that were designed to assist blacks. They credited him for a robust economy that boosted black employment, home ownership, entrepreneurship and opportunities in education.

With little fanfare, Bill Clinton appointed more blacks to Cabinet and other posts than any other president. In fact, 13 percent of his appointments were black.

Most blacks lauded the president's historic trip to Africa, where he apologized for slavery. He introduced a U.S. race initiative and appointed black historian John Hope Franklin as its chairman. Although white conservatives derailed the initiative, blacks gave Bill Clinton credit for trying to do the right thing on their behalf.

Beyond politics and the economy, many blacks saw Bill Clinton as a kindred soul in ways that had a lot to do with comfort, perceptions and feelings. Blacks liked the president's personal style, his savoir faire and his unpretentiousness and easy movements and demeanor in their presence. They did not judge him as harshly as did whites on morality.

Vernon Jordan, a black lawyer, was Bill Clinton's golfing buddy and confidant, and the president's personal secretary was a black woman. Even after he was safely in the White House, Bill Clinton invited himself to black churches, prayed alongside blacks and sang Negro spirituals without a hymnal, no small matter.

He regularly brought black jazz musicians, rock stars, athletes, children and business owners to the White House, no small matter.

During a May 2002 interview, National Public Radio's Tavis Smiley asked the president to explain why he and "black folk get along so well together." The response is worth quoting at length:

"Well, I think it's partly the way I was raised. I had two very unusual grandparents who had no formal education to speak of. The worst racists in the South were the lower middle class whites because they needed someone to look down on. My grandparents weren't that way. They were for integration the whole time. My granddaddy had a little grocery store, and almost all of his customers were black. And so I grew up different than most kids did my age. Then, I was blessed to go to law school with some African-Americans who became friends of mine. ...

"You take a group of people that have been under the gun for generations, and they develop extraordinary antennae about who's with them, who's against them, who's just shaking around and who's for real. But the main thing is I just wanted all the people in our party to be committed to an agenda that would empower African-Americans. ... One of the reasons I wanted to be in politics is that I didn't like racism, and I didn't like inequality, and I wanted to do something about it."

While embracing the president's egalitarian spirit, the same blacks accepted Hillary Clinton because, like her husband, she had proved to be a friend of blacks and had shown earnest commitment to their issues.

Even as a teenager in Chicago, she and other girls in her church organized fellow teens tobabysit for migrant workers. At Yale Law School, she supported black efforts, including the defense of Black Panthers. As first lady of Arkansas and the nation, she championed causes significant to blacks and other minority groups.

For these reasons and others, older civil rights leaders and politicians, such as John Lewis, Julian Bond and Charles Rangel, supported Hillary Clinton's run for the White House from the beginning. They believe they know her, and they trust her.

Many young blacks, however, who did not come of age during the civil rights movement and who did not personally experience the Clinton magic, have no loyalty to the Clintons. Instead, the overwhelming majority of them support Obama - who, like them, was not part of the movement but who greatly benefited from it.

Now, the Clintons no longer can take for granted broad black support. For the first time since they have been in public life, they must compete for the affection of black Americans. Ironically, they must compete against a black man.

By BILL MAXWELL, St Petersburg Times, January 27, 2008

DAVIE, Fla. (AP) - Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Florida Democratic primary Tuesday night, an event that drew no campaigning by any of her presidential rivals and awarded no delegates to the winner.

But Clinton promptly declared it a welcome victory.

The New York senator, fresh off her lopsided loss to Barack Obama in last weekend's South Carolina primary, arranged a rally in the state as the polls were closing, an evident attempt to gain campaign momentum.

She and Obama collide next week in a coast-to-coast competition for delegates across 22 states.

"I am convinced that with this resounding vote, with the millions of Americans who will vote next Tuesday, we will send a clear message that America is back and we will take charge of our destiny once again," she said to a boisterous crowd.

Last year, the national party stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for moving its primary ahead of Feb. 5 and the candidates pledged to bypass the state. At stake Tuesday were 185 delegates.

Still, Clinton winked at that pledge, holding two closed fundraisers in recent days and scheduling a rally with supporters after the polls closed in Florida.

It is expected that the eventual nominee will try to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, reversing the Democratic National Committee's punishment.

"I could not come here in person to ask you for your votes, but I am here to thank you for your votes today," she said. "This has been a record turnout because Floridians wanted their voices to be heard. I promise you I will do everything I can to make sure not only are Florida's Democratic delegates seated but Florida is in the winning column for the Democrats in 2008."

Michigan also violated party rules by moving its primary to Jan. 15, and party leaders voted to strip the state of its 156 delegates as punishment. Clinton has also made a plea for Michigan delegates to be seated at the convention

Democrats participated in Tuesday's primary, driven to vote in part by ballot initiatives on property tax relief and gambling in some counties.

Exit polls of Florida Democrats conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks showed that the economy was the most important issue facing the country. Half of Democrats called the economy poor, compared to only about one in seven Republican primary voters.

Both parties' electorates were older than in any other presidential contest this year. A third or more in each primary were at least 65 years old. In earlier Democratic contests no more than a quarter were senior citizens.

By MIKE GLOVER, The Associated Press, January 29, 2008

New York is the second-biggest prize on Feb. 5, when 22 states hold primaries and caucuses. Its bounty of delegates - 281 for Democrats, 101 for the GOP - is up for grabs, even though two home-state candidates are in the race.

Well-accustomed to being the center of attention otherwise, New York now finds itself with a pivotal primary for the first time since - when? "One that really mattered?" says pollster Maurice Carroll of Quinnipiac University. "I can't remember one. Maybe Charles Evans Hughes?"

Virtually since Hughes, the New Yorker who lost to Woodrow Wilson in 1916, candidates have come to the state to raise cash. The 10021 ZIP code in Manhattan has long been the top source of campaign donations for both parties. Residents there have already given $11 million to candidates for the 2008 presidential run, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a non-profit that tracks money in campaigns.

But now former mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, a Democrat, want to be the first New York politician elected president since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.

Clinton has traded early-state wins with Sen. Barack Obama: each has two. Giuliani is struggling to win Florida's primary Tuesday for his first victory.

In his home state, Giuliani has lost a huge lead. In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll Wednesday-Saturday, Sen. John McCain has a double-digit lead among registered Republicans who say they plan to vote.

Clinton leads Obama by a ratio of 2-1 here, the poll shows.

New York, which didn't even have a primary until 1968, hasn't had a meaningful contest since 1988, when Michael Dukakis won and Al Gore had to drop out.

"New York is not a kingmaker, but it's not a rubber stamp, either," says Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Poll.

Like voters elsewhere, New Yorkers are most worried about the economy: 46% of Democrats and 39% of Republicans say it's their top concern.

New ideas aren't as compelling to the seen-it-all New York electorate: 35% of Democrats listed it as the most important quality in a candidate, compared with 33% who cited the ability to get things done in Washington. GOP voters preferred getting things done to new ideas, 37% to 30%.

Though rich in delegates, New York is a hard place to campaign: It's big and demographically diverse, including large blocs of black, Hispanic and Jewish voters.

It's also expensive for TV ads, which are crucial in the coast-to-coast campaign on Super Tuesday. TV ads in New York City cost as much as $3 million a week, says Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. That could hurt cash-strapped candidates such as Democrat John Edwards.

Giuliani's decision to compete only in Florida before Feb. 5, and his sharp poll decline, has thrown New York into unexpected flux.

Former governor Mario Cuomo, a liberal Democrat who won Giuliani's endorsement in his last race, says voters aren't aware of Giuliani's strategy to skip the early primary states. "If you ask them, he's losing. He's not really losing, he took a pass," says Cuomo, who is neutral in the Democratic primary.

Giuliani's early campaign focused on his performance during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Recently, he also has been emphasizing his mayoral record. That's a record New Yorkers know well, for good or bad.

"Coming in weak and then having this critical context to deal with in his own state is going to be very problematic," says Gerald Benjamin, a political expert and dean at the State University of New York at New Paltz. Giuliani's critics, including some firefighters and families who lost loved ones on 9/11, "are concentrated here," Benjamin says.

The Democratic contest awards delegates proportionately: Obama can win delegates without having to overcome Clinton's statewide lead.

Clinton has been a popular senator, winning a second term in 2006 by a wide margin. Her support "confirms an unusual New York disposition to be OK with carpetbaggers," Benjamin says. "New York says, 'We get the former president to live here, we get his wife as senator, now as a potential president: This could pay off.' "

By Martha T. Moore, USA TODAY, January 27, 2008

With the Democratic primary unlikely to be essentially done by Feb. 5 - as so many people thought it would be - Hillary Clinton says her party not only won't be hurt by a bruising, drawn out contest between her and Barack Obama, but it will help the eventual nominee beat the GOP in November.

"I think people understand that this is a very contested, vigorous election," Clinton said this morning. "That heightens interest, that gets more people involved. The contrast between us and the Republicans could not be starker. They are more of the same. We present a very diffferent approach to our problems here at home and around the world.

"I have no doubt once the nomination is resolved we're going to come together as a party, we're going to make our case, I think, vigorously and successfully to the country in November. And I expect that we will have already inaugurated a Democratic President by this time next year."

However, that runs counter to conventional wisdom that says an extended fight will make it impossible for the eventual winner to raise money, and provide the other side with an entire ammo dump's worth of material to use in the general election. Of course, the GOP has a bit of a contest on its own hands still.

By Michael McAuliff, New York Daily News, January 27, 2008

There was some buzz about it, but it wasn't really a gotcha photo, and it really doesn't help Barack Obama, that photo of Bill and Hillary Clinton sandwiching indicted political fixer Tony Rezko at some forgotten fundraiser.

Billary were like two icy slices of white political bread, and Rezko stood between them like meat. All the Clintons probably knew of Rezko was what they could feel coming through his palms pressed against their backs: some ambitious somebody ready to make some moves.

That won't hurt Hillary. And she's probably got some other images in mind -- either real photos or word pictures -- about Rezko and Obama that she'll probably drop on the way to Super Tuesday.

One image will surely involve the dream house that Rezko helped the Obamas buy. And another involves Rezko himself, about to stand federal trial in a huge political corruption case involving not only Democrats, but old bull Republicans in Illinois, with Rezko passing through the metal detectors in the federal courthouse.

Those are the images Obama must concern himself with. The Rezko-Clinton photograph wasn't much.

"I've probably taken hundreds of thousands of pictures," Hillary Clinton told "Today" show host Matt Lauer. "I don't know the man. I wouldn't know him if he walked in the door. I don't have a 17-year relationship with him."

Perhaps some of the Obama folks hoped that photo would help them -- a play on the old Clinton strategy of pulling everyone down into the mud. But Rezko won't stick to her. She scraped him off her shoe with ease.

"I try not to attack first, but I have to defend myself -- I do have to counterpunch," said Sen. Clinton, playing the unwilling combatant, the victim forced to protect herself.

As she spoke, you could hear the razors clacking against the back of her teeth. Sen. Obama must have heard them, too.

He's the one with the long relationship with Rezko. He'll pay for that friendship. If he wants to survive the Clintons and their ambition, Obama will have to fight back, hard. He's been much too timid, much too gentle with them. He's too nice, and he's in a street fight.

"OK, well, I can't tell who I am running against sometimes," an exasperated Obama said the other day after another series of Clinton tag team attacks, with Bill punching low and Hillary with that roll of quarters inside her velvet glove.

Up until now, politics has been so easy for Obama, with his opponents either exploding or imploding, as he ran for the Senate in Illinois. He didn't even have to run. Instead, he sauntered easily into Washington and then after just one speech at the 2004 convention he became the Democratic savior/rock star.

So perhaps it's been too easy for him. When I called him the Mr. Tumnus of American politics, after the gentle, magical faun in the C.S. Lewis stories, I wasn't joking.

Last week, the Clintons tricked his campaign into playing racial politics, and as others have noted, the Obama people bit, and played the race card and he finally fell out of the sky and became the black candidate. Now that he's scrambling on the ground with the mortals, the Clintons will try to bury him with Rezko.

It's ugly and political and predictable, but fair. Obama has had the benefit of a loving media. If the Clintons want to force a constitutional crisis upon the country with a co-presidency, they must continue on the offensive.

And now that John Edwards stubbornly and selfishly hangs in the race, splitting the anti-Hillary vote, the Clintons have the luxury of time, and can reach for the mud when Obama approaches.

The Clintons must have waited for the national media to pick up on the Rezko Real Estate Fairy story broken by Tribune investigative reporters in 2006. But Hillary had to bend down herself and grab a few handfuls of Rezko to throw and she got her fingerprints all over things.

"Dirt shows up more on a white horse," a conservative political wise man who knows and likes Obama told me at breakfast the other day. "It doesn't show so much on a gray horse. But on a white horse, it's dramatic."

So watch for the Clintons to push the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped. Hillary Clinton couldn't quite make the case that Obama helped do legal work for his "slumlord" pal, but homeowners will understand Rezko as Obama's Real Estate Fairy.

If there were a good gotcha photo of Bill and Hillary and Rezko, they'd be in the back yard of a dream house that Rezko helped them buy in a shady deal, Bill passing a PBR longneck through the wrought iron fence in the evening.

They'd laugh, the three of them, Bill biting his lip, twinkly, Hillary with that sharp-eyed laugh, and Rezko, calm, the beer cold, condensation beading, some steaks burning on the patio grill, fireflies, night crickets, good times.

That would be a gotcha photo, but it doesn't exist. Rezko belongs to Obama.

By John Kass, Chicago Tribune, January 27, 2008

More or less even after small-state contests, including Saturday's South Carolina primary, the battle between Democratic presidential front-runners Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama shifts to a coast-to-coast landscape. It will be a dizzying nine-day sprint to Super Tuesday, when New York and 21 other states hold primaries or caucuses.

Obama, who found success in the early states by captivating voters at town hall meetings, can no longer rely on up-close-and-personal politicking to deliver his message of hope and change.

It's now essentially a media war, with Obama and Clinton competing in sound bites and 30-second ads. And as spectacular as Super Tuesday will be - the biggest multi-state Primary Day in U.S. history - it appears mathematically unlikely either will clinch the nomination.

Polls show Clinton leading in the Feb. 5 states with the top prizes, most notably California (370 pledged delegates) and New York (232), which have about 30% of the convention votes needed to secure the nomination.

But these delegates are awarded proportionally based on the popular vote, not winner take all, which means neither candidate can count on a windfall.

Both campaigns expect to fight on at least through March, when Ohio and Texas vote.

"Cancel your tickets for spring training," David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser, recommended.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, an Obama supporter, conceded that the altered playing field following South Carolina poses challenges for the Illinois senator.

"When people see him, they are with Barack - there's no question about it. And, yet, the laws of physics say that he can not be in so many places at one time," she said.

Costas Panagopoulos, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University, said the Super Tuesday map helps Clinton because she and her husband successfully ran two presidential campaigns and have a powerful national network of supporters.

"That doesn't necessarily mean she's going to win or that there's no way to counteract that," he said. "But at least on that level, she can take advantage of an operation that is largely in place."

Top Obama campaign officials said he will compensate for lacking the opportunity to meet many voters live by revving up a grass roots political operation and seizing as many free media opportunities as possible.

Robert Gibbs, Obama's communications director, said the "fundamentally different terrain" won’t handicap Obama.

"You're going to have to depend on a huge volunteer base to knock on doors, to make phone calls, to get organized, to get precincts out to vote," he said. "Far and away, we have the largest volunteer base of any campaign."

Obama has multiple offices with paid staff in all 22 Feb. 5 states, including two in Alaska. He already is advertising in 10 Feb. 5 states; Clinton has ads up in nine states.

On Super Tuesday, there will be roughly 1,700 delegates up for grabs. A candidate needs 2,025 delegates to clinch the nomination.

Clinton sources say she could get 1,100 delegates under their best-case scenarios, but they worry the final gap may be much closer.

And if longshot John Edwards draws enough delegates, he could position himself to play kingmaker in the unlikely event the battle for the nomination heads to the convention floor this August.

Clinton is still expected to have an edge among nearly 800 so-called "superdelegates" - party VIPs who aren't bound by the outcome of primaries or caucuses.

"The superdelegates are the Democratic establishment, and the establishment is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Clintons," a senior Democratic consultant said.

Said Axelrod: "Look, there's no doubt that Sen. Clinton has some advantages by dint of being named Clinton." But he added, "As we've seen, it's not an insuperable barrier."

By MICHAEL SAUL, New York Daily News, January 27, 2008

SOMERVILLE, Mass. - In a basement office downstairs from the local Social Security Administration building, Barack Obama's campaign is gearing up for another day of phone banking and canvassing.

Maps and signs plaster the walls. Volunteers and campaign staffers busy themselves scrolling through computerized lists of voters. Empty tables with telephones await the crush of volunteers for the prime voter calling hours of 5 to 9 p.m.

Across town in Boston's blue collar Dorchester neighborhood, Hillary Clinton's campaign is up to much of the same, coming up with lists of voters to target and volunteers to go door-to-door for the New York senator.

After generations of being an afterthought in the presidential primary contest -- known more for fielding candidates like former Gov. Mitt Romney and shipping volunteers north to New Hampshire -- Massachusetts is suddenly a battleground state, drawing money, advertising and field operations.

All the attention is due to two big factors -- this year's unusually close fight for the nomination in both parties and, more importantly, the decision by lawmakers to move the state's primary to up a month to Feb. 5, Super Tuesday.

Suddenly, Massachusetts -- and its 121 Democratic delegates -- count.

No where is that more contest being harder fought than in the increasingly divisive contest between Obama and Clinton in Massachusetts, a state where virtually all top elected officials are Democrats.

The Obama-Clinton contest is splitting many of those top Democrats.

One of the earliest and strongest Obama supporters is Gov. Deval Patrick. Both share Chicago roots, a Harvard education and campaign themes of hope and change.

Patrick has campaigned for Obama in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina and on Sunday attended a Barack Brunch in Boston with supporters. "We've certainly asked people who have supported my campaign to support Sen. Obama as well," Patrick told The Associated Press in a phone interview Sunday. "It's a voter-to-voter strategy. It's very much about grassroots. It's about bringing in new voters."

Patrick also took a veiled swipe at Clinton. "There's a lot to like about Hillary Clinton and I think she is a very capable candidate, but this is a once in a generation opportunity we have in Sen. Obama," he said. "I don't think what Sen. Obama is offering is a chance to vote against somebody else."

Patrick has been joined recently by other high profile Massachusetts Democrats. Sen. John Kerry has endorsed Obama and Sen. Edward Kennedy -- one of the most sought-after endorsements in the Democratic Party -- is also expected to announce he is backing Obama.

There's plenty of support for Clinton in Massachusetts, too.

One of the biggest backers here is House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi, D-Boston. DiMasi is leading a group of more than 80 lawmakers in the House and Senate who are turning over their local operations to the Clinton campaign.

DiMasi says Clinton has the experience to hit the ground running, and took a veiled swipe of his own at Patrick when asked about the similarities between Patrick and Obama, both of whom DiMasi has suggested are political novices.

"I might have been a little critical at the beginning about saying that someone without any experience in government, who doesn't have the ability to understand the legislative process, was someone who had to learn a lot," DiMasi said during a Clinton organizing event this week.

"To be perfectly honest, I really don't want my president to be in there on a learning process for the first six months to a year," he added. "It's too important."

At the campaigns' nerve centers in Somerville and Dorchester, the focus is on reaching voters and persuading them to support their candidate.

One morning this week, Jarel LaPan, 26, state director for Obama campaign, was busy organizing volunteers and "cutting turf" -- campaign lingo for pulling together packets with maps and positions papers to hand off for volunteers going door to door. She was quick to downplay suggestions that Obama is relying too heavily on younger voters. "Our office isn't just filled with 20-somethings. We have all different age groups," she said. "It's an early primary this year so people are pretty jazzed."

One of those volunteers is Stephen Kharfen, 45, a librarian from Boston and a lifelong Democrat. The last time Kharfen felt so engaged politically was during Bill Clinton's first run for the White House in 1992. This time around Kharfen is backing Obama. "Obama is the first person since then to get me interested in getting actively involved," he said. "I think Hillary Clinton is great, but I feel Obama is the best person to achieve the hopes I have for this country."

At Clinton's headquarters, campaign director Mark Daley is helping organize some of the 2,500 volunteers from Massachusetts who turned out for Clinton in New Hampshire.

Daley is working to make sure those same volunteers help win their home state for Clinton. He's also working closely with those state lawmakers who back Clinton.

"Almost all of them have turned over their organizations to us for help for grassroots support," he said. "We feel really good. Obviously, Massachusetts is an important state for us."

All the excitement is having an effect. Secretary of State William Galvin said he's seen a spike in absentee balloting and urged people to send in for ballots no later than Monday.

Some longtime Democratic political activists say all the attention and vigorous campaigning is good -- but also fear the heat of the campaign may leave lingering divisions in the party after the election is over.

"I'm very concerned that people are not angry with each other on Feb. 6," said former Democratic Party Chairman Philip Johnston, an Obama supporter. "If they don't calm down, we could be in danger of having a tough time in the fall."

By Steve LeBlanc, The Associated Press, January 27, 2008

In complaining "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes," Barack Obama targeted Hillary Clinton's "can't live with him, can't live without him" dilemma regarding her husband.

If she loses the nomination, Monday morning quarterbacks will mock Sen. Clinton's strategy that risked turning the 2008 Democratic campaign into the Clinton 1990s nostalgia tour and will claim her husband should have played the healing Democratic statesman, not the snarky spousal buttinsky.

But if Mrs. Clinton wins, Bill Clinton's heavy-handed involvement in her campaign will cast a shadow over her presidency - until she asserts her independence.

The Clintons seem to forget that Americans already rejected a Clinton co-presidency back when they were campaigning in 1992.

Although the huge executive branch bureaucracy makes the modern presidency a corporate effort, it remains in Americans' minds a solitary post, focused on one individual who serves as king, prime minister and celebrity in chief.

Shrewd presidents have always understood that the nation requires one undisputed leader. Opposing the Bank of the United States in the early 1830s, Andrew Jackson showed how personally he took the presidency, muttering: "The bank ... is trying to kill me, but I will kill it."

In 1861, when Secretary of State William Henry Seward presumed he would act as prime minister to compensate for Abraham Lincoln's inexperience, President Lincoln proclaimed that if something controversial "must be done, I must do it."

A century later, John Kennedy kept his wealthy, domineering father, Joe Kennedy, behind the scenes. George W. Bush has insisted that he alone is "the decider" - not his father, not Vice President Dick Cheney and not Karl Rove.

The overwhelming focus on the president as soloist has strained presidential marriages. White House life disrupted the once-seamless teamwork of Bess and Harry Truman; Bess Truman resented being marginalized. Reporters frequently build up one spouse at the other's expense.

In 1977, with Jimmy Carter charming the press, journalists neglected Rosalynn Carter. By 1980, reporters discovered a flourishing Mrs. Carter as her husband languished.

Whenever first ladies have become too involved in policy matters, they have triggered angry popular backlashes. The Clintons first campaigned in 1992 promising "two for the price of one." They quickly dropped the co-presidency talk when surveys showed that voters perceived Mrs. Clinton as power-hungry and arrogant.

Sen. Clinton's current dilemma lies in the fact that the costs associated with relying too much on her husband are balanced out by the rock-star excitement he generates, and his considerable political savvy. True, as senator, Hillary Clinton distanced herself from her husband, but, as always, in adversity the Clintons unite.

Barack Obama has been a particularly frustrating adversary for both Clintons. His potential to be the first black president trumps Hillary Clinton's push to be the first woman president while threatening Bill Clinton's special relationship with African-Americans. Moreover, Obama's generational appeal for a "different kind of politics" repudiates the Clintons as perpetually battling baby boomers, making the fight very personal.

Hillary Clinton's presidential race has become a mission to affirm Bill Clinton's legacy, with the former president starring in radio ads celebrating the 1990s as "a time of prosperity."

The result has been a battle so pitched that leading Democrats have warned Bill Clinton to stop being so combative and central to Hillary's efforts.

If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, and ultimately the presidency, she will enter the White House far more beholden to her husband than is healthy. Sending him regularly to Africa to fight AIDS might help create the needed distance.

If, however, the Clintons forget what happens when a presidential spouse gets assigned a disproportionate policy role, they should remember their health care reform debacle. Back in 1993, first lady Hillary Clinton overstepped, taking on too much power and responsibility as compensation, many believed, for helping quell the 1992 "bimbo eruptions."

Then again, if her husband proves problematic, President Hillary Clinton can recall how President Bill Clinton virtually fired her after health care reform failed in 1994 and consider doing the same to him.

By GIL TROY, Newsday, January 27, 2008

Next week's Super Tuesday contest is the biggest single day of voting in the US presidential nominating campaign, with 22 states heading to the polls.

The vote is on February 5 US time, with the first results expected on the morning of February 6 in Australia.

After his landslide victory over Hillary Clinton in South Carolina, Barack Obama is upbeat.

"I think people want change. I think they want to get beyond some of the racial politics that has been so dominant in the past, and we're very encouraged as we go to the February 5 states," he said.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, is trying to stay positive.

"I've always said that that's where we would be at the end of these early states," she said.

As Senator Obama strives to peg back Senator Clinton's lead in several of the Super Tuesday states, he has picked up the endorsement of the daughter of President John F Kennedy.

In an opinion piece in The New York Times, Caroline Kennedy says Senator Obama can inspire Americans the same way her father once did.

Senator Clinton has also admitted her husband may have gone overboard in his campaigning for her, but she has chalked it up to love and sleep deprivation.

"My husband has such a great commitment to me and to my campaign, you know, he loves me," she said.

The Republican race isn't without its high-profile endorsements. Liz Cheney, the daughter of Vice-President Dick Cheney, is backing Mitt Romney, joining his campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser.

A new Zogby poll shows Mr Romney is tied for the lead in Florida with John McCain, and the pair have been trading verbal blows over the Iraq war and the economy, with Mr Romney accusing his opponent of shying away from focusing on America's economic woes.

"Obviously he's doing his very best, I think desperately, trying to change the topic from the economy, trying to get it back to the war in Iraq," Mr Romney said.

"He doesn't want to talk about the economy because, frankly, he's pointed out time and again that he doesn't understand how the economy works."

Rudy Giuliani has slipped to fourth place behind Mike Huckabee, and after once saying that whoever wins Florida will go on to become the Republican nominee for president, the former New York mayor now won't say if he'll pull out of the race if he scores poorly there.

"We're going to win in Florida," he said. "We have been campaigning here very steadily since the early voting began."

While much of America's attention is focused on who will be the next president, the current occupant of the White House, George W Bush, delivers his final State of the Union tomorrow.

By Kim Landers, Australia Broarcasting Corp., January 28, 2008

MIAMI - Sen. Bill Nelson will point to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's experience and their long-standing relationship when he endorses her presidential campaign after polls close Tuesday, according to prepared remarks obtained by The Associated Press.

Nelson will introduce Clinton during her first public event in the state since last fall, when she and other Democratic candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in Florida because it broke party rules by moving its primary ahead of Feb. 5.

"For too many years, too many Americans have been invisible to their own government. In this primary, some even tried to silence our state," Nelson said in the remarks. "Hillary Clinton will never let that happen. Hillary will be a president who will take the voice of all Americans - and all Floridians - to the White House."

Nelson's endorsement comes after Clinton said she would seat delegates from Florida at the Democratic National Convention. The Democratic National Committee stripped all 210 delegates to the convention because of the primary dispute.

Nelson and Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., sued the committee in federal court to restore the delegates, but a judge ruled in favor of the party.

Nelson said he has been friends with the senator and her husband, President Clinton, for almost two decades. The remarks also mention Clinton's experience.

"She's a Clinton, and we know that Clintons know how to manage the economy," the speech reads. "Hillary's got a plan to get our economy going again, create more jobs that pay better, make college more affordable, and put a freeze on home foreclosures."

President Clinton held a fundraiser in 2006 that brought in $500,000 for Nelson's re-election. Nelson was elected to the Senate in 2000, the same year Clinton won her New York seat, and the two serve on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Nelson may also have been swayed by the Clinton campaign's insistence this month that Florida's primary matters even if no delegates are at stake, the same argument that Nelson has been making and a point he will repeat Tuesday.

By contrast, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign has said the Florida primary is a non-factor. A Quinnipiac University poll released Monday shows Clinton with a 20-point lead over Obama.

The Associated Press, January 28, 2008

(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Democrat Barack Obama holds the upper hand in a prospective United States presidential contest against Republican Mike Huckabee, according to a poll by Rasmussen Reports. 51 per cent of respondents would vote for the Illinois senator, while 35 per cent would back the former Arkansas governor.

Support for Obama in this match-up increased by six points since early December, while backing for Huckabee fell by the same margin. In a separate contest, Huckabee trails New York senator Hillary Rodham Clinton by eight points.

Yesterday, Huckabee called for increased funding for the country's infrastructure needs, saying, "It would not only create American jobs, but would do something about traffic bottlenecks that desperately needs to be done."

Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, January 27, 2008

Following a bruising primary fight in South Carolina that resulted in an overwhelming win for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) over Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), the Democratic frontrunners sounded conciliatory notes Sunday.

Clinton acknowledged that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who was criticized from within his own party for attacks on Obama, had gotten "carried away" at times on the campaign trail.

"I think that the spouses of all three of us have, you know, been passionate and vigorous defenders of each of us and, you know, maybe got a little carried away," Clinton said on CBS's Face the Nation.

The senator also stated that she hopes that, following the South Carolina primary, the tenor of the campaign would change and indicated that all sides should take a step back.

"At the end of the day, we will come together as Democrats," the former first lady said. "We will be a united and committed party to take back the White House in November."

Meantime, Obama, who appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, refused to engage in what he called a tit-for-tat with the Clinton campaign.

He praised Bill Clinton for his work as president, arguing that he "recognized that we needed to take the old traditional values of the Democratic Party of equality, of opportunity of community and update them for a new era."

Instead, Obama focused on his message to bring change to the country, arguing that the country is weary of the "slash and burn" politics of the 1990s.

"We still see it in Washington today. It is very hard for us to have a common sense, non-ideological conversation about how we're going to deal with our energy problems. It's very difficult for us to figure out how are we going to make this economy work for all people and not just some people," Obama said. "That is not the Clintons' fault. It is all our faults in the sense that we have gotten into these bad habits and we can't seem to have disagreements without being disagreeable."

By Klaus Marre, The Hill, January 27, 2008

NEW YORK (AP) - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has won the backing of California Rep. Maxine Waters, an influential member of the Congressional Black Caucus whose support could help blunt charges of racial polarization against the Clinton campaign in the South Carolina primary.

Clinton and Waters were expected to announce the endorsement via conference call later Tuesday.

In a statement, Waters praise the former first lady's readiness to tackle the nation's economic woes.

"At a time when the economy continues to worsen and so many of my constituents are losing their homes and their jobs, we need someone with the leadership and experience who can step in on day one to tackle the economic challenges our country is facing," Waters said. "Hillary understands the daily challenges that people are facing and she will fight for them everyday she is in the White House."

Issues of race and gender have come to the forefront of the campaign, pitting Clinton, who hopes to be the first female president, against Obama, seeking to become the first black to hold the job.

The Associated Press, January 29, 2008

CHICAGO (AP) - Lawyers for an indicted businessman who poured thousands of dollars into the campaigns of Barack Obama and others planned to try and persuade a judge at a hearing Tuesday to reinstate his bond.

Real estate developer and fast-food entrepreneur Antoin "Tony" Rezko was jailed Monday after prosecutors disclosed he received $3.5 million from an Iraqi billionaire while claiming to be broke.

Rezko was arrested Monday at his home in Wilmette and held after his attorneys failed to dissuade Judge Amy J. St. Eve from revoking his $2 million bond.

"This defendant has played a shell game and I think misled the court about what his assets are," federal prosecutor Reid J. Schar said.

He had been free on bond since he was indicted in 2006 on charges of scheming to pressure companies seeking state business for kickbacks and campaign contributions.

St. Eve scheduled a hearing for Tuesday afternoon for Rezko's lawyers to make their case for bond one more time.

Rezko's name has surfaced in the Democratic presidential race because of his ties to Obama, who ended up donating to charity thousands of dollars in campaign contributions connected to Rezko. During a South Carolina debate, Hillary Rodham Clinton accused Obama of representing Rezko "in his slum landlord business" when Obama was a young Chicago lawyer.

Obama actually represented partners of Rezko's company in government-subsidized apartment rehabilitation projects, not Rezko himself. Obama says he did no more than five or six hours of work for the partners.

Rezko has contributed thousands of dollars to the campaigns of both Obama and Gov. Rod Blagojevich - neither of whom is accused of any wrongdoing.

Rezko is due to start trial Feb. 25 on charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and attempted extortion. He is charged separately with swindling the General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in the sale of a pizza restaurant business.

Federal prosecutors say Rezko was deceptive in leading St. Eve to allow various relatives and friends to post their property to secure his bond while claiming he was broke and living off relatives' generosity.

An FBI affidavit said Rezko actually received $3.5 million from a Lebanon-based bank account of General Mediterranean Holdings, a Luxembourg company owned by London-based Iraqi billionaire Adhmi Auchi. Rezko's attorney said Rezko has had business dealings with Auchi.

Prosecutors said in their filing that $3.5 million was wired into a fund maintained at a Chicago bank by attorneys handling Rezko's tangled finances. They said the money was later transferred into other accounts and disbursed within a week.

Some of the money was transferred directly to Rezko, some to a company he owned, some to his wife, Rita, and some to friends and relatives who had posted their homes to secure his bond, according to the filings. Rezko's legal bills also were paid with a portion of the money, they said.

Defense attorney Joseph Duffy tried to take some of the blame himself Monday, saying he may not have adequately explained to Rezko his obligations. St. Eve brushed that aside, saying Duffy was not in any way at fault.

By MIKE ROBINSON, The Associated Press, January 29, 2008

It's the one night in Washington when decorum truly reigns: The president delivers the State of the Union speech, and politicians of both parties put on their best behavior and come together to pay tribute to the living, breathing democracy that makes America what it is. Did Barack Obama honor the tradition?

Obama finds himself questioned today about whether he snubbed rival Hillary Clinton last night in the House chamber before President Bush gave his speech. As Clinton greeted Senator Edward Kennedy -- who endorsed Obama yesterday with great fanfare -- Obama seemed to turn his back and walk away.

On MSNBC this morning, David Axelrod, a senior Obama adviser, said the Illinois senator was merely trying to spare all of them an awkward situation. "No, I don't think he snubbed her at all," Axelrod said. "First of all, they acknowledged each other as they entered the chamber. But I think he knew that Senator Kennedy and Senator Clinton were friends. This was obviously an awkward day from that standpoint, and I don't think he wanted to stand there while Senator Kennedy was greeting Senator Clinton."

Axelrod continued, "In this environment, every single thing can be - can be inflated and interpreted and will in a political - in a hyper-political light. But it is what I suggested. I think it's understandable that he would not want to stand there with Senator Kennedy as if he were lording it over her."

By Scott Helman, The Boston Globe, January 29, 2008

As endorsements go, Hillary Rodham Clinton has hit a trifecta in New York, getting an edge before the Feb. 5 primary by winning the backing of the state's three most powerful unions.

Hundreds of members of the American Federation of Teachers, which represents 470,000 workers in the state, are making calls on her behalf from phone banks in Manhattan, Hauppauge, Utica, Plattsburgh and a dozen other communities. The Service Employees International Union has sent out a pro-Clinton mailing to more than 360,000 doormen, janitors, nurses, nurses' aides, home care workers and others.

And District Council 37, a Manhattan-based division of the nation's largest union for government employees, dispatched dozens of activists to ring members' doorbells this weekend to urge them to vote for Mrs. Clinton.

"By and large, our membership follows the leadership, and we are expecting the majority of our membership overwhelmingly to support Hillary Clinton," said Wanda Williams, director of political action for District Council 37, which represents 121,000 municipal workers, about 90,000 of them registered Democrats.

But in a trend that could hurt Mrs. Clinton and embarrass union officials, many of the rank and file do not seem inclined to play follow the leader. Outside the headquarters of the city's Administration of Children's Services last Thursday, one District Council 37 member after another - even those who backed Mrs. Clinton - said they would not reflexively follow what their union leaders were telling them.

"I do my own thinking," said Heidi Seifert, a child welfare worker, as she was leaving work. "Out of the three candidates, I think John Edwards is best." Still, she said, she might opt for Mrs. Clinton or Barack Obama if Senator Edwards fades before the New York primary.

Ronell Dunham, an administrative assistant, said he was "not affected" by his union's pro-Clinton campaign. "I back Obama," he said. "It would be great to have a black president. He's firm. He'll take charge of a lot of things. He'll help the poor."

With political prognosticators expecting Mrs. Clinton to win New York easily, pro-Clinton unions could have chosen to sit out the New York primary or campaign at half speed. But union leaders understand that there is a lot at stake for her, including making sure that she wins her home state by a large enough margin to avoid embarrassment.

Mike Fishman, the president of Local 32BJ of the service employees' union, which represents 60,000 building-service workers in New York, is pressing his union to do its utmost.

"Far more than in recent years, the primary in New York means something because the delegate count is going to matter," he said. "We have to help her get as many delegates as she can."

The candidates are looking to unions to deliver for them, partly because candidates are doing little broadcast advertising in New York, where ad rates are high.

"Given that the candidates will be low on financial resources and the party can't participate, labor unions might play a bigger role than ever before in targeting the vote and pulling it out," said Jennifer Cunningham, a political consultant and the former political director of the giant health-care union, 1199 S.E.I.U. United Healthcare Workers East. That 300,000-member union has endorsed Mrs. Clinton and done a mailing for her, even though many of the union's members strongly support Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards.

In political races, people from union phone banks often first call members to ask which candidate they support and then, a day or two before the election, call back those who support the union's preferred candidate to remind them to vote.

This year's Democratic campaign has led to embarrassment and disappointment for many unions. In the Iowa caucuses, Mr. Obama had minimal union support, yet he bested Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Edwards, both of whom had heavy labor backing. In the Nevada caucuses, the union that is by far the largest in the state, Culinary Local 226, representing 60,000 hotel and restaurant workers, endorsed Mr. Obama a week before the caucuses, yet Mrs. Clinton won more votes.

"Unions aren't very influential in persuading members which candidate to vote for," said Joshua B. Freeman, a history professor at City University Graduate Center and the author of "Working-Class New York."

"But unions are very good at getting people to vote. In general elections, unions can make a big difference if they get union members to turn out in big numbers because union members tend to be Democrats."

Bruce S. Raynor, president of Unite Here, the parent union of Nevada's culinary local, argued that unions can play a powerful role in persuading members whom to back.

"Unions are effective when they have enough time to educate our members and make the case why we endorse a particular candidate," Mr. Raynor said. "Merely saying that a union has endorsed a candidate has limited effect. Members have minds of their own."

He said that his union did not have enough time to conduct a full-scale educational campaign in Nevada on behalf of Mr. Obama.

"One way unions have a great effect in elections is they provide the foot soldiers" to knock on doors, run phone banks and be poll watchers, Mr. Raynor said.

The teachers' union has taken pains to educate its members about why they should support Mrs. Clinton. The union has distributed literature, made phone calls to persuade members and asked Clinton backers to urge co-workers at their schools to support her.

"Our members don't want to just hear from their union about whom we endorse," said Randi Weinggarten, president of the teachers' union local in New York City, the United Federation of Teachers. "They want to know why."

Mrs. Clinton has certainly wooed the teachers' union, attending its convention last year and phoning in to a Jan. 16 meeting of 1,000 U.F.T. delegates while she was campaigning in Nevada.

"People were incredibly buzzed by her call," Ms. Weingarten said. "We are unequivocally supporters of her because of her lifelong commitment to working families and children and to seeing the promise of education to change people's lives."

Ms. Weingarten said that judging from her union's phone bank surveys, about 70 percent of the city's teachers back Mrs. Clinton, with 10 percent opposed.

"We have a lot of African-American members who are torn," she said. "There is a lot of pride about Barack Obama. But citywide it's overwhelming for Hillary."

The city's unions have largely stayed out of the Republican primary. The International Association of Fire Fighters has campaigned vigorously against former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani in Florida and several other states. It has not campaigned against Mr. Giuliani in New York, with union officials believing that if he places poorly in the Florida primary on Tuesday, he might drop out before Feb. 5.

Firefighter officials say the union's New York City affiliate, the Uniformed Firefighters Association, is considering endorsing Senator John McCain.

Just one New York union has endorsed Mr. Obama, the Correction Officers Benevolent Association, which was the only union to endorse Michael R. Bloomberg when he ran for mayor against Mark Greem in 2001.

Norman Seabrook, president of the union representing 9,000 correction officers, said he hoped his union would help Mr. Obama win just as it had helped Mr. Bloomberg. Unlike most union leaders, he waits until the last minute to do political mailings.

"When you do a mailing to members long in front of an election, it just sits on the dresser," he said. "It doesn't resonate with the person."

Within the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the parent of District Council 37, there has been some friction about its full-throated support of Mrs. Clinton. Some executive board members of the national union wrote its president to complain that it was undercutting Democratic efforts by attacking Mr. Obama unfairly.

In New York, District Council 1707, another division of the same union - it represents 25,000 child care workers and home care workers in the city - has bucked its parent union by remaining neutral. And five of its members are running as Obama delegates.

"Hillary we see as a friend, and Obama's not an enemy," said G. L. Tyler, the union's political action director. "Our members are open to vote for whomever they want."

Some union leaders are eager to maximize the involvement of their members during the primary to make sure their union's political muscles do not atrophy before November.

"A lot of it is about continuing the activity of our members," said Mr. Fishman of the service employees union. "We have 60,000 members. It's an exciting time, and everybody's watching."

Voters Weigh Implications Of Unprecedented Choice

As a longtime Connecticut Democrat, Emily Zimmerman has seen the ascent of many more women than blacks to statewide political office - members of Congress, governors and other elected leaders.

Still, the 56-year-old Bridgeport resident is firm in her belief that the election of a woman as president would be more historic than the election of an African American.

"I think the election of a woman would have much more historical significance. Not so much here in Connecticut, but nationally, it would really be something to see a woman win," said Zimmerman, who is supporting New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "Down South, unfortunately, I can't see a woman breaking through. We've got a long way to go in how women are perceived and judged."

Gender and race politics are weighing in the presidential election in ways they never have before, with some Democrats viewing the runoff between Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as a double-or-nothing shot at making history.

The two Democratic front-runners are closely aligned on issues, so the politics of identity has ballooned in importance, prompting new theories on the power of cultural allegiances and sparking "who's-got-it-tougher?" dinner-table debates.

A Hartford Courant/Center for Survey Research and Analysis poll of likely primary voters, conducted Jan. 9-17, found Democrats evenly split on whether the election of a woman or an African American would be more historic. But that split was driven largely by gender: Democratic women said the election of a woman would be more significant; Democratic men said the election of a black president would be a bigger deal.

The poll also found that Democratic women had stronger feelings about seeing a woman elected first, with 52 percent saying they'd "rather see" a woman and 14 percent favoring an African American.

Democratic men were not nearly so invested in who makes history: 25 percent said they'd rather see a woman first, 24 percent said they'd prefer an African American and 29 percent opted for "neither."

Among Republicans, both men and women said the election of an African American would be more historic.

The poll did not break down voters by race, so it did not gauge differences in sentiment between blacks and whites.

"Democratic women are alone among the parties and genders in thinking electing a woman would be more historic," said Monika McDermott, research director for the polling center, which is at the University of Connecticut, and an assistant professor of political science at UConn. "Men in the Democratic Party, and Republicans overall, just don't have a strong preference on who gets elected first. The symbolism doesn't mean much to them."

The gender divide among Democrats isn't surprising, given that women have "a horse in the race," McDermott said.

Democratic women are the force pushing Clinton ahead of Obama in the statewide poll, favoring her by 52 percent to 21 percent for Obama. Among Democratic men, the two are running neck-and-neck, with Obama winning 33 percent to Clinton's 31 percent. Overall, Clinton is 14 percentage points ahead.

But the sentiment among Democratic women that the election of a woman would be more historic than that of an African American is noteworthy, given the political landscape in Connecticut, where far more women have held public office than blacks. Connecticut has seen two women governors, six congresswomen and 18 women in statewide office, while there have been no African American governors, one black congressman and five black statewide officeholders. Women make up slightly more than half the state's population; African Americans comprise about 10 percent.

Nationally, women also have outnumbered blacks as governors, senators and presidential candidates.

'Huge' Gender Gap

Voters who say the election of a woman would be more significant probably aren't counting heads in Congress as much as they are expressing their allegiance to Clinton, said Debbie Walsh, director of the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

"I think it's hard to know, at this point, is this support for Hillary or for the generic concept of a woman?" Walsh said.

"Certainly, for many women, there's a tug of 'oh wow, this would be big, this would be historic,'" Walsh said, pointing out that, in some ways, Clinton has talked about making history more than Obama. "But at this point, with [strong allegiances] to candidates, I think it's hard to ask these questions as generics."

Walsh said the 21-point gender gap in the Connecticut poll - 52 percent of Democratic woman supporting Clinton, compared with 31 percent of men - was "huge."

Lex Paulson, an Obama campaign volunteer organizing Connecticut's 4th Congressional District, said Clinton and Obama have appealed to voters in different ways. Obama "doesn't play traditional identity politics. Obama's message is, 'we have to bring power to people who have too little of it.' His message is not based on comparing genders or comparing races, but uniting them," he said.

Clinton supporters in Connecticut say some women who view the election of a woman as more groundbreaking may be looking at history through a personal lens.

"I think they're answering from their own personal souls - that it would be more historic for them," said Sandra Brenner, a Clinton supporter who participated in the poll. "There's a sense that [Clinton has] risen above the kinds of things we've all had to deal with, the patronizing attitudes or the double standards."

Brenner, a retired teacher who lives in New Milford, said gender wasn't a factor in her decision to support Clinton, whose "brains and experience" won her over. She thinks the election of an African American, more than a woman, would "make the world sit up and take notice." But she is looking past history in choosing a candidate.

"I'm happy she's a woman, but that isn't a defining factor," she said of Clinton. "The same way I hope people don't vote based on race, I would hope they don't vote based on body parts."

Personal Experience

April Capone Almon understands the pull of gender politics firsthand: She needed the support of women voters to help her become the first female mayor of East Haven last year, and she got it. Like Clinton, she said, she downplayed the historical significance of her run. But women took up the cause, all the same.

"I never made an issue out of it, but I found there were a lot of women who identified with me, the way women are identifying with Hillary," said Capone Almon, who is backing Clinton. "Older women, especially, they were just so excited to see me doing something that wasn't a possibility for them."

Capone Almon said younger women may not feel the tug of gender the way those who lived through the women's movement might, and may identify more closely with Obama, 46, because of his relative youth.

Paulson, the 27-year-old Obama volunteer, agreed. He said his mother, a feminist, "was on the fence a lot longer than my dad or I was, because the idea of a woman president was a far more radical thing [for her generation] than it is for ours." He said younger voters "have a far more subtle approach to voting historically, voting to make history, voting to break barriers. The barriers that we see are drawn in a more complicated way. ... One of the reasons why Barack Obama is so captivating is he is not a peg that fits in any hole. He doesn't fit into a category. He defies categories."

Alicia Dutil, 25, of Bristol, said that while the election of a woman would be "great to see," she is supporting Obama because she likes his stands on issues such as the war and health care. "I would never vote for a woman just because of her gender," Dutil said. "I've heard many, many people say that they would vote for Hillary just to see a woman in the White House, and I think that just cheapens your vote."

Walsh, of Rutgers, said that while gender and race are both in play, voters have made it clear "you're not going to get us just on race. You're not going to get us just on gender." She said pollsters "are struggling with the question: How strong is the tug?"

A Male View

For men such as Ray Seligson, a physician from Madison who supports Clinton, the possibility of breaking barriers is worth a conversation, but not a vote.

"I probably would feel like it's more historic for an African American to get elected. I'm in a state that has had two women governors. A woman doesn't feel as unexpected to me," Seligson said. "I think, historically, although African Americans got the vote before women, the overall political forces are more against African Americans."

But he said those considerations haven't weighed in his thinking. "I'm looking at the people and the issues," he said.

Race and gender do weigh in the thoughts of some black women voters, who say they've felt both tugs while trying to focus on the candidates' positions and records. Gail Crockett, a state employee from West Hartford, decided to support Obama after giving both him and Clinton a lot of thought. "It's not a gender issue for many women of color," Crockett said. "It is truly a strange confluence of events for our community. It's causing a lot of folks - particularly women, particularly women of color - to think a lot more clearly about who they want to lead the country." Crockett said Obama's biracial background swayed her decision. "I have an African American son. I know what it's like to raise a child and worry about the lack of positive role models," she said. "All the talk about role models - and here we have one, running for president. ... "I have to think about this not only from a historical perspective, but within my own family. It wasn't difficult to figure out where I needed to be."

The state poll suggests that gender is playing a bigger role in support for Clinton than race is playing in Obama's support. While a majority of Clinton supporters - 66 percent - said they want to see a woman elected first, fewer than half of Obama supporters expressed a preference for seeing an African American elected first.

McDermott said it's not necessarily a plus for a candidate to be viewed as a standard-bearer for a particular group, given the need to appeal for broad-based support.

"We don't know that it's a positive" to be viewed as history-making, McDermott said. "We can't assume that people want things shaken up like that. If anything, I think it's better for the candidates to downplay those qualities."

So far, Obama and Clinton have gone that route - sort of. Clinton has talked about running to "break the highest and hardest glass ceiling"; Obama has said he talks a lot about hope because "you've got to have hope if you are a black man named Obama running for the presidency of the United States of America."

The Connecticut poll shows that voters of both parties perceive the country as "more ready" for a woman as president than an African American. Fifteen percent of Democrats and 13 percent of Republicans said the country was not ready for either one.

The readiness question probably is tied to voters' allegiances to particular candidates. But it also reflects a perception that racism is the tougher challenge.

Michael Jefferson, chairman of the state's African-American Affairs Commission, said both Obama and Clinton have to overcome powerful forces.

"We live in a sexist society ... and I think that plays a role in how men perceive women in general and women candidates in particular," Jefferson said. "What complicates this parti