Canada says leak was "blatantly unfair" to Obama

Randall Palmer writes for Reuters:

The leak of information about Barack Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "blatantly unfair" to his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Wednesday.

Harper said the government was mounting an "internal security investigation" to find out who leaked the information, which suggested Obama's campaign had said not to pay too much attention to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable and in fact ... it may well be illegal," the prime minister told Parliament.

(Full Article)

A must-read.

It's all about the numbers...

On Feb. 29, I made this prediction about the outcome of Tuesday on my livejournal:

My predictions based on everything I've read so far...

Obama takes Vermont.
Texas is a statistical tie, but Obama takes more delegates.
(He's ahead in the TX polls farther than he was in Wisconsin, but I'm erring on the side of caution on this one due to too many unknowns).

Clinton takes Rhode Island.
Clinton takes Ohio (but by a fairly slim margin).

Outcome: Obama maintains delegate lead. Clinton gets bragging rights for RI and OH.

She won Ohio by a higher margin than I expected (I was figuring around 5 points), but other than that I was pretty close.

What surprised me though is that my prediction held even after the "kitchen sink" was launched.
I feel pretty good today, actually.
Obama has the same delegate lead and the math favors him clearly.

Clinton has to win every single contest from now on in order to close the delegate gap.
Possible, but highly unlikely.

Wyoming and Mississippi are both favored for Obama this weekend based on his past performance in the south and with caucuses.
There's a full 6 weeks between now and Pennsylvania.
I'm predicting now that he will loose PA, but he will cut down Clinton's lead there significantly.


Ok, now it's time to put on my "campaign advisor" hat...

Obama clearly needs to step up his game on two fronts.
1) Countering the "kitchen sink".
Not in the sense of fighting fire with fire. It's not his style, and frankly, he's not very good at that.
Rather he needs to debunk these attacks swiftly and assuredly. He did well countering the "red phone" ad, but he really tripped up on "CanNAFTA".
That gave Clinton an opening to exploit that gave her a bigger margin in OH (where the economy was the biggest issue).
He also needs to stop trying to ignore it and put the Rezko issue to bed definitively.

His campaign also needs to put more pressure on Clinton to a) release her tax returns, b) release her white house records, and c) prove her own "red phone" worthiness.

So far it looks like he's getting on that train.

2) He needs to keep a closer leash on his surrogates.
Goolsbee should not have been able to talk to Canada for any reason without Obama knowing about it.
The issue here wasn't the alleged "wink wink". That was debunked all around.
The problem was Obama stating that no meeting took place.
Technically this was true since the question was whether a meeting took place with the embassy (there was no meeting with the embassy, it was with the consulate), but Obama should have been better informed on exactly what happened prior to giving any kind of press conference.

I should also point out that Obama now has a move that he should exploit with respects to way Clinton jumped on CanNAFTA.
If he first, definitively puts the issue to bed, then paints her as being overly negative by jumping on it before she knew all the facts, he can turn this around.

Richardson to Hillary: "Get out"

Keith Herbert writes for Newsday:

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former White House candidate who hasn't endorsed Clinton or Obama, became the latest prominent Democrat to step up pressure on Clinton to drop out should she fail to win in both Ohio and Texas. "I just think the D-Day is Tuesday. We have to have a positive campaign after Tuesday," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

(Full Article)

(Bill) Clinton's law comes back to haunt him...

No arguments here!

Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee endorses Obama...

Clinton questions Obama's readiness on national security?

As reported on Business Wire:

Today, Senator Jay Rockefeller, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, endorsed Barack Obama for president, citing his judgment on the Iraq war and national security issues, and calling him the right candidate to lead our country during a time of instability at home and abroad.

Senator Rockefeller said, “Today, I’m proud to lend my support and strong endorsement to Barack Obama and his candidacy for President of the United States. Barack Obama is the most qualified person – Democrat or Republican – to lead our country in the face of enormous challenges – the very real threat of terrorism, economic uncertainty, and instability at home and abroad.

“As Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I am all too aware that the threats we face are unconventional. They are sophisticated. They are constantly changing and adapting. And they are very serious. What matters most in the Oval Office is sound judgment and decisive action. It’s about getting it right on crucial national security questions the first time – and every time.

“The indisputable fact is Barack Obama was right about Iraq when many of us were wrong. It was a tough call and the single greatest national security question, and mistake, of our time. Today, we remain a country at war, and countless mistakes over the last six and a half years have made us less safe. The stakes have never been higher, and that is why we must take a stand.

(Full Article)


MSNBC reports:

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D) of West Virginia introduced Obama at a small gathering of local business leaders here at Hocking College this morning, testifying to his strength on national security and his ability to inspire.

"I've been around a while. I grew up in the '60s; there was a ton of hope. Times were a lot better then. Now the economy is sinking into a very bad situation. You see this everywhere. How come then that I feel more hope and more optimistic and more confident in our future than I ever have before? Because of Barack Obama," Rockefeller, who recently endorsed the Illinois senator, said.

Lending weight to Obama's candidacy from his perch as the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Rockefeller claimed that no other candidate running for president had better judgment than Obama on national security.

"Not to be obnoxious about it," Rockefeller said, "I know what's going on in every part of the world all the time. It's grim… That's why another reason I have confidence, of all the candidates running, primary or general, there's only one person who really has the capacity as strong and as necessary to make the judgments, nuanced judgments to create a foreign policy that tells you when you are to be strong, military if that comes, but also how to take a situation to break it down and look at it," he said.

(Full Article)


'Nuff said.

Media bias?

Clinton's claims of media bias against her just don't hold water when the likes of CBS news posts these profiles of each candidate.

Obama

Clinton

If fact, they are so clearly stacked in Clinton's favor (her profile is 90% positive, while Obama's is 90% negative and leaves out many of his key accomplishments), that they can hardly be taken seriously by anyone who has done their homework about the candidates.

Shame on you CBS News!

We are the ones...

Will.I.Am. returns with another great video.