Random-Ass Irrelevant Newspaper Endorses Hillary!

In perhaps a telling sign of the way in which the Clinton campaign has been going, this "hot-off-the-press" release directly from her website:

If You Read One Thing Today: Vermont Woman Newspaper endorsed Hillary.

That's right - if you read only one thing today, make sure it's Vermont Woman. With a circulation of nearly 20,000, it's only slightly easier to find than the Okachobee High School Reporter.

Meanwhile, Obama's website is also touting his latest newspaper endorsement:

[Cincinnati] Enquirer endorses Obama on Democratic side

As I said, it's a reflection of the difficulties Hillary has had finding her footing in an increasingly desperate battle to stay competitive with an Obama campaign that has somehow taken on a life of its own. The rhetoric has been cranked up, and not always to Clinton's benefit. Witness this bizzarre press-release from Hillary's campign braintrust, brilliantly dissected by Wonkette:

Anything the Hillary Clinton camp says these days on teevee, to reporters, to anyone who is a human being, rapidly erodes the entire
campaign and her legacy. In their latest memo, which must have been written in crayon and targeted at the Cro-Magnon community, Team Clinton says that sinceObama has done everything correctly, any loss in the future would finalize his defeat.

To: Interested Parties

From: The Clinton Campaign

Date: Friday, February 29, 2008

RE: Obama Must-Wins

The media has anointed Barack Obama the presumptive nominee and he's playing the part. With an eleven state winning streak coming
out of February, Senator Obama is riding a surge of momentum that has enabledhim to pour unprecedented resources into Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. The Obama campaign and its allies are outspending us two to one in paid media and have sent more staff into the March 4 states. In fact, when all is totaled, Senator Obama and his allies have outspent Senator Clinton by a margin of $18.4 million to $9.2 million on advertising in the four states that are voting next
Tuesday. Senator Obama has campaigned hard in these states. He has spent time meeting editorial boards, courting endorsers, holding rallies, and - of course - making speeches. If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there's a problem. Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear: Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer.

Translation: Barack Obama has won eleven straight contests, raised more money (because people like him), campaigned brilliantly and thoroughly in Texas and Ohio -- thereby marginalizing Clinton's long-held leads in those states -- won most endorsements and made legendary speeches at his overpacked rallies. Clinton has lost eleven straight contests, is consistently on the verge of bankruptcy, has run poor, indifferent campaigns in Texas and Ohio -- states she led by double digits only a couple of weeks ago -- lost every endorsement and cannot speak. Obama sure has dug his own grave with this "doing well in the election" strategy this election season.

And a new Zogby poll shows Obama now ahead in Texas, and closing a once double-digit gap in Ohio.

Texas

Clinton - 42%

Obama - 48%

Ohio

Clinton - 44%

Obama - 42%

Should be an interesting Tuesday...

Thoughts on (President?) Nader

He's baaaack. As everyone knows by now, Ralph Nader has thrown his hat into the 2008 Presidential ring, and is re-earning the wrath of disgruntled Democrats who blame him for contributing to Al Gore's defeat in 2000.

Red Tory has officially endorsed Nader's candidacy, and has graciously offered to headquarter his campaign in Victoria BC. Well, maybe that's a bit of an overstatement. But he supports Nader's run, and that's more than I can say of myself.

It's not that I'm a big fan of either the Democrats or their two Presidential candidates. The lines between the Repugs and the Dems has become increasingly blurred over the years, and the Democrats in Congress are largely a group of spineless nitwits. Nor do I lay the blame for Al Gore's defeat in 2000 solely at Nader's feet. He probably did take some votes away from the Democrats, but you'd have to be delusional to think that a handful of disenfranchised progressives singlehandedly sank a multi-million dollar Presidential campaign. Truth be told, I admire Nader's steadfast commitment to social justice and demilitarization.

No, the reason I roll my eyes at Nader is the same reason I roll my eyes at Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. It's strictly a matter of practicality. The numbers are obvious. I wish that America had viable options other than the Republicans and Democrats. But no end of marginal independant candidates like Nader, Perrot or Buchanan is going to bring that about. So why bother? If we're encouraging people like Huckabee to drop out, we shouldn't be encouraging people like Nader to join in just because he's not a creationist wingnut. Call me crazy.