Spinning the Saturday Sweep.

How will the Clinton campaign rationalize the losses over the weekend? It’s not pretty. Said Senator Clinton: “‘These are caucus states by and large, or in the case of Louisiana, you know, a very strong and very proud African-American electorate, which I totally respect and understand.’ Noting that ‘my husband never did well in caucus states either,’ Clinton argued that caucuses are ‘primarily dominated by activists” and that “they don’t represent the electorate, we know that.‘” So, “activists” and African-Americans, not “real” Dems. Got it. As for Bill Clinton’s take: “‘Her campaign’s broad appeal is largely to people who need a president,’ Clinton told an audience in Silver Spring’s Leisure World retirement community tonight. ‘Very often they are working and busy and dont go to these caucuses.’” Sure. I guess holding them on a weekend probably didn’t help either. As a commenter at TNR wryly characterized the spin last night: “Clearly there’s been a massive flood of Latte sipping African American knowledge workers into rural Maine.“

Mind you, I’ve said before that caucuses may not be the best way to organize a statewide election. But, given both the breadth and depth of Obama’s leads in caucus states all across the country, Sen. Clinton’s continued losses speak less to the inherent problems of caucusing than to the inherent problems of the Clinton campaign. As I said yesterday, if her campaign is any indication of the managerial talent we can expect from a Clinton presidency, the prognosis is not good. To wit, it’s poorly managed, woefully disorganized, suffers from a lack of “activist” enthusiasm, and — like a certain Republican administration I could mention — clearly had no Plan B. (Also, apparently, Sen. Clinton wasn’t apprised of her dismal funding situation until after Iowa. Another managerial coup.)

Insult to Injury.

It’s been that kind of weekend for the Clintons. Barack Obama defeats Bill Clinton at the Grammys. But don’t feel too bad for the former prez: “Though Clinton and Carter lost, they both have won the category before (Clinton, twice). And Hillary Rodham Clinton took home a Grammy in 1996 for her audio version of the book, ‘It Takes A Village.’“

The Clinton Money Crunch.

“We are very frustrated because we have a Supreme Court that seems determined to say that the wealthier have more right to free speech than the rest of us. For example, they say you couldn’t stop me from spending all the money I’ve saved over the last five years on Hillary’s campaign if I wanted to, even though it would clearly violate the spirit of campaign finance reform.”

So said Bill Clinton only a little over a month ago. But, as per the norm with the Clinton campaign, things have now changed: Word leaks out that Senator Clinton is not only planning to self-finance her candidacy with personal “loans” (a la Mitt Romney), but that she already gave her campaign $5 million out-of-pocket last month. (Indeed, money’s gotten so tight around the Clinton camp that, according to Time‘s Mark Halperin, senior staff are now going without pay.)

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama is on pace for another $30 million month and has room to grow, mainly because he’s relying on a wider pool of small donors rather than (as per Senator Clinton) a smaller pool of maxed-out donors and an army of lobbyists. (Which reminds me, Senator Obama accepts donations here.)

I for one doubt Sen. Clinton’s campaign will really run out of cheddar. If anything, the campaign probably put the story out there so as to encourage their supporters to donate in the same fashion as Obama’s have. Still, this Clinton cash crunch further indicates how much of their election strategy was predicated on a Super Tuesday knockout punch. Having swung and missed, the Clinton camp is now nearing broke, and seriously hurting.

More to the point, even notwithstanding the inherent shadiness of self-financing, which no less than Bill Clinton attested to above, this move puts President Clinton’s penchant for troubling deals — such as his recent venture in Kazakhstan — right in the thick of things. Hard to ignore in any event, now this story comes front and center. If the Clintons are breaking into their private stash to get Senator Clinton elected, where did the money come from?

Showtime | Barack Obama for President.

It’s Super Tuesday. Do you know where your voting station is?

GitM’s endorsement of Barack Obama | GitM’s Obama archives

Why Obama is progressive | Why Clinton is not | A Note for the Boomers

Some great Obama speeches.

List of over 100 Newspaper Endorsements.

Yes, we can.

Et tu, Teddy?

“The President made a deal with Senator Kennedy and neither one of them meant to mess it up. The deal was supposed to be, we will give the schools more money and get rid of two programs that Bill Clinton actually started…Now think about that — you get the worst of all worlds.” On the campaign trail in Arkansas (he’s campaigning in Arkansas?), Bill Clinton goes after Teddy Kennedy on the issue of No Child Left Behind. This follows on remarks he said yesterday: “I want you to think about this, and I have to say, this was a train wreck that was not intended. No Child Left Behind was supported by George Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy and everybody in between. Why? Because they didn’t talk to enough teachers before they did that.” Left unmentioned in both cases: “Everybody in between” includes Senator Clinton, who also voted for NCLB in 2001.

C’mon aboard, you won’t hurt the horse.

It’s the Friday before Super Tuesday, and no Edwards and no Gore…yet (and neither look to be choosing before Tuesday, if at all.) But some other big endorsements for Obama this morning:

Move On votes to endorse Obama, and will encourage its 1.7 million members in Super Tuesday states to follow suit. The movement said recently they’d back a primary candidate if two-thirds of their members agreed on one. “The vote favored Senator Obama to Senator Clinton by 70.4% to 29.6%.” Says Obama: “In just a few years, the members of MoveOn have once again demonstrated that real change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up…I thank them for their support and look forward to working with their members in the weeks and months ahead.“

The California SEIU, 650,000 strong, has switched from Edwards to Obama. “Obama’s pledge to ensure working families have a strong voice, that health care is not a luxury and that our children are given the tools to succeed best represents the values that our members care about,” said Annelle Grajeda, president of the SEIU California State Council.“

CT Rep. Rosa DeLauro endorses Obama tomorrow, which is a big deal because she’s higher-profile in DC than most (her husband is also former Clinton pollster Stan Greenberg.) That being said, Connecticut’s biggest prize, Chris Dodd, is announcing today that he staying neutral.

Perhaps eyeing a Harlem rout for Obama, Charlie Rangel’s wife, Alma Rangel, endorses Obama for president. “I believe Barack Obama has the ability to unify this country and the character to stand up for what’s right instead of what’s popular. Barack is a man of principle, a man whose faith in the greatness of our nation gives us hope, showing us what’s possible if we work together.“

ABT principal ballerina Gillian Murphy endorses Obama for president. Good goin’, little sis.

The Yale Daily News foregoes their famous alumni and — like the Harvard Crimson — decides to back Obama. “[T]he time has come to abdicate Yalie rule over America, at least for now…An Obama presidency promises a reassertion of the natural, American optimism for which JFK stood, but also new reforms of which he could only have dreamt. Let us not let this moment slip away.“

George Clooney, already an Obama backer, speaks well of his candidate, but seems gunshy to stump for him (for legitimate reasons).

California’s Asianweek backs Obama: “A native Hawaiian, Obama’s personal and political background reflects the multicultural future of America. The energy Obama has ignited among young Asian Pacific American activists is unprecedented for presidential politics and could pave the way for future APA involvement.“

Word is that Bill Richardson won’t endorse anyone until after February 5. Given that my sense is he leans Clinton (although others argue he just wants a job either way), this is good news for Obama. Update: Bill and Bill will be Superbowl buddies. Doesn’t sound like he’s heading Obama’s way.

“‘This week helped me make up my mind between two great candidates – that I was going to be supporting Sen. Obama,’ Blumenauer said.” And other House endorsements of the past few days: “Reps. Jim Oberstar (D-Minn.) and Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Friday…Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) all announced their backing for Obama on Thursday. Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.) endorsed him on Wednesday. All of their states except Oregon will vote Tuesday in the so-called ‘national primary.‘”

In Our Country, Clinton is Problem.

“I’ve been tested. I’ve been vetted. I have been in the political arena in our country very intensely for 16 years. There are no surprises.” Ah. But, Senator Clinton, what about your husband? A front-page story in this morning’s NYT — a paper so resolutely anti-Clinton it recently endorsed her for president — unearths what look to be some murky political dealings in Kazakhstan involving Bill Clinton and a top donor, former uranium-mining entrepreneur and Lions Gate Entertainment founder Frank Giustra. (He’s the fellow at right.)

It’s a long, convoluted article, but this seem to be the essence of it: Clinton said nice things publicly about the freedom-suppressing dictator of Kazakhstan — in contradiction of US policy, the views of human rights groups, and even Senator Clinton’s professed stance on his government — so his buddy Giustra could land a lucrative exclusive mining contract. A much wealthier man as a result, Giustra later repaid Clinton in absurdly large donations to his Foundation, to the tune of $131 million. Both denied any quid pro quo, and both seem to have lied about at least some of the meetings that took place. This is all explained in more detail below:

In September 2005, President Clinton and Giustra, then head of a company called UrAsia and “a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan,” journeyed by private plane to Borat‘s home nation, where “a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world.“

The reason for their visit? To negotiate an exclusive deal to buy into three mining projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency, Kazatomprom. “Kazakhstan, which has about one-fifth of the world’s uranium reserves, was the place to be. But with plenty of suitors, Kazatomprom could be picky about its partners. ‘Everyone was asking Kazatomprom to the dance,’ said Fadi Shadid, a senior stock analyst covering the uranium industry for Friedman Billings Ramsey, an investment bank. ‘A second-tier junior player like UrAsia — you’d need all the help you could get.’“

Upon arriving, Clinton and Giustra were “whisked off to share a sumptuous midnight banquet with Kazakhstan’s president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, whose 19-year stranglehold on the country has all but quashed political dissent.” At this dinner, a deal may have been made.

At a news conference soon thereafter, Clinton made a “public declaration [that] undercut both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan’s poor human rights record by, among others, Mr. Clinton’s wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York…The publicly stated reason for the visit was to announce a Clinton Foundation agreement that enabled the government to buy discounted AIDS drugs. But during a news conference, Mr. Clinton wandered into delicate territory by commending Mr. Nazarbayev for ‘opening up the social and political life of your country.’ In a statement Kazakhstan would highlight in news releases, Mr. Clinton declared that he hoped it would achieve a top objective: leading the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which would confer legitimacy on Mr. Nazarbayev’s government. ‘I think it’s time for that to happen, it’s an important step, and I’m glad you’re willing to undertake it,’ Mr. Clinton said.“

As noted, this vote of confidence flew in the face of US policy — and statements by Senator Clinton. “Eleven months before Mr. Clinton’s statement, Mrs. Clinton co-signed a commission letter to the State Department that sounded ‘alarm bells’ about the prospect that Kazakhstan might head the group. The letter stated that Kazakhstan’s bid ‘would not be acceptable,’ citing ‘serious corruption,’ canceled elections and government control of the news media…Robert Herman, who worked for the State Department in the Clinton administration and is now at Freedom House, a human rights group, said the former president’s statement amounted to an endorsement of Kazakhstan’s readiness to lead the group, a position he called ‘patently absurd.’ ‘He was either going off his brief or he was sadly mistaken,’ Mr. Herman said. ‘There was nothing in the record to suggest that they really wanted to move forward on democratic reform.’“

Two days after Clinton’s press conference, Giustra — again, basically an unknown upstart in the uranium business — secured the Kazatomprom deal. “The cost to UrAsia was more than $450 million, money the company did not have in hand and had only weeks to come up with…Longtime market watchers were confounded. Kazatomprom’s choice of UrAsia was a ‘mystery,’ said Gene Clark, the chief executive of Trade Tech, a uranium industry newsletter. ‘UrAsia was able to jump-start the whole process somehow,’ Mr. Clark said. The company became a ‘major uranium producer when it didn’t even exist before.’“

Nazarbayev was happy. “in December 2005, Mr. Nazarbayev won another election, which the security organization itself said was marred by an ‘atmosphere of intimidation’ and ‘ballot-box stuffing.’ After Mr. Nazarbayev won with 91 percent of the vote, Mr. Clinton sent his congratulations. ‘Recognizing that your work has received an excellent grade is one of the most important rewards in life,’ Mr. Clinton wrote in a letter released by the Kazakh embassy. Last September, just weeks after Kazakhstan held an election that once again failed to meet international standards, Mr. Clinton honored Mr. Nazarbayev by inviting him to his annual philanthropic conference.“

Giustra got rich. “The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said“

Clinton got paid. “Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month. The gift, combined with Mr. Giustra’s more recent and public pledge to give the William J. Clinton Foundation an additional $100 million, secured Mr. Giustra a place in Mr. Clinton’s inner circle, an exclusive club of wealthy entrepreneurs in which friendship with the former president has its privileges.“

Clinton and Giustra spun the whole story with barely plausible statements. “A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said the former president knew that Mr. Giustra had mining interests in Kazakhstan but was unaware of ‘any particular efforts’ and did nothing to help. Mr. Giustra said he was there as an ‘observer only’ and there was ‘no discussion’ of the deal with Mr. Nazarbayev or Mr. Clinton. But Moukhtar Dzhakishev, president of Kazatomprom, said in an interview that Mr. Giustra did discuss it, directly with the Kazakh president, and that his friendship with Mr. Clinton ‘of course made an impression.’…He said Mr. Nazarbayev himself ultimately signed off on the transaction.“

Giustra later helped Kazatomprom’s top man, Moukhtar Dzhakishev, run a new deal by Clinton, one involving a potential Kazakhstani stake in US nuclear tech. “Mr. Dzhakishev, the Kazatomprom chief, said he traveled to Chappaqua, N.Y., to meet with Mr. Clinton at his home. Mr. Dzhakishev said Mr. Giustra arranged the three-hour meeting. Mr. Dzhakishev said he wanted to discuss Kazakhstan’s intention — not publicly known at the time — to buy a 10 percent stake in Westinghouse, a United States supplier of nuclear technology.“

A cover-up was attempted about this later meeting. It failed. “Both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Giustra at first denied that any such meeting occurred. Mr. Giustra also denied ever arranging for Kazakh officials to meet with Mr. Clinton. Wednesday, after The Times told them that others said a meeting, in Mr. Clinton’s home, had in fact taken place, both men acknowledged it.”

And here’s probably the most serious kicker, regarding a Clinton return to the White House. “Mr. Clinton has vowed to continue raising money for his foundation if Mrs. Clinton is elected president, maintaining his connections with a wide network of philanthropic partners.“

I must say, at the very least, this does not sound like change.

Lakoff on the Dem Divide.

There is a reason that Obama recently spoke of Reagan. Reagan understood that you win elections by drawing support from independents and the opposite side. He understood what unified the country so that he could lead it according to his vision.

Obama understands the importance of values, connection, authenticity, trust, and identity.

But his vision is deeply progressive. He proposes to lead in a very different direction than Reagan. Crucially, he adds to that vision a streetwise pragmatism: his policies have to do more than look good on paper; they have to bring concrete material results to millions of struggling Americans in the lower and middle classes. They have to meet the criteria of a community organizer.

The Clintonian policy wonks don’t seem to understand any of this. They have trivialized Reagan’s political acumen as an illegitimate triumph of personality over policy. They confuse values with programs. They have underestimated authenticity and trust…

This nomination campaign is about much more than the candidates. It about a major split within the Democratic party. The candidates are reflecting that split. Here are three of the major “issues” dividing Democrats.

First, triangulation: moving to the right — adopting right-wing positions — to get more votes. Bill Clinton did it and Hillary believes in it. It is what she means by “bipartisanship.” Obama means the opposite by “bipartisanship.” To Obama, it is a recognition that central progressive moral principles are fundamental American principles. For him, bipartisanship means finding people who call themselves “conservatives” or “independents,” but who share those central American values with progressives. Obama thus doesn’t have to surrender or dilute his principles for the sake of “bipartisanship.”

The second is incrementalism: Hillary believes in getting lots of small carefully crafted policies through, one at a time, step by small step, real but almost unnoticed. Obama believes in bold moves and the building of a movement in which the bold moves are demanded by the people and celebrated when they happen. This is the reason why Hillary talks about “I,” I,” “I” (the crafter of the policy) and Obama talks about “you” and “we” (the people who demand it and who jointly carry it out).

The third is interest group politics: Hillary looks at politics through interests and interest groups, seeking policies that satisfy the interests of such groups. Obama’s thinking emphasizes empathy over interest groups. He also sees empathy as central to the very idea of America. The result is a positive politics grounded in empathy and caring that is also patriotic and uplifting.

For a great many Democrats, these are the real issues. These real differences between the candidates reflect real differences within the party. Whoever gets the nomination, these differences will remain.

It is time for the press, the pundits, the pollsters, and the political scientists to take these issues seriously.

Linguist and cognitive scientist George Lakoff — also the recent author of Don’t Think of an Elephant — attempts to explain what he sees as the crucial differences between Clinton and Obama.

The “other” ex-President.

“‘Obama’s campaign has been extraordinary and titillating for me and my family,’ Mr. Carter said…’He has an extraordinary oratory…I think that Obama will be almost automatically a healing factor in the animosity now that exists, that relates to our country and its government.’“

Former president Jimmy Carter compliments Barack Obama, although he also says he will not be endorsing anyone before the nomination is decided. “Mr. Carter also said he talked by telephone at length on Monday with former President Bill Clinton, who was ‘trying to explain that he was not raising the race issue’ on the campaign trail…Mr. Clinton ‘has said a few things that I think he wishes he hadn’t said,’ Mr. Carter said. ‘He doesn’t call me often, but the fact that he called me this morning and spent a long time explaining his position indicates that it’s troublesome to them, the adverse reaction.’”

Barack, Beloved.

“This letter represents a first for me–a public endorsement of a Presidential candidate. I feel driven to let you know why I am writing it. One reason is it may help gather other supporters; another is that this is one of those singular moments that nations ignore at their peril. I will not rehearse the multiple crises facing us, but of one thing I am certain: this opportunity for a national evolution (even revolution) will not come again soon, and I am convinced you are the person to capture it.”

Author and Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison endorses Barack Obama for president. “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. It is too bad if we associate it only with gray hair and old age. Or if we call searing vision naivete. Or if we believe cunning is insight. Or if we settle for finessing cures tailored for each ravaged tree in the forest while ignoring the poisonous landscape that feeds and surrounds it. Wisdom is a gift; you can’t train for it, inherit it, learn it in a class, or earn it in the workplace — that access can foster the acquisition of knowledge, but not wisdom.“

Also, since Toni Morrison’s invoking of Clinton as “the first black president” has been getting a lot of run lately, it helps to remember it in context. “Morrison was not saying that Bill Clinton is America’s first black president in a cute or celebratory way, nor was she calling Clinton an ‘honorary Negro.’ Rather, she was comparing Clinton’s treatment at the hands of Starr and others with that of black men, so often seen as ‘the always and already guilty “perp.”‘”