The Reject and Denounce Double Standard.

As Ambinder notes today, the Clinton campaign dropped a $100,000 donor over the weekend, one Mehmet Celebi, apparently upon discovering he’s been making anti-semitic movies (about Jewish doctors harvesting organs from Muslims.) Said Clinton flunky Ann Lewis two days ago: “We were unaware of Mr. Celebi’s involvement in this film and we obviously do not agree with it.” That would seem to be a bit less forceful than Clinton’s “reject and denounce” blathering regarding Farrakhan at the Ohio debate, wouldn’t it? In any case, Ann Lewis is lying. The New York Post contacted the campaign about Celebi over a month ago, when they had no comment.

As for Farrakhan, WP columnist Colbert King notes that the Clintons were singing a very different tune on him until very recently. “Post-White House Clinton found no fault with Farrakhan’s leadership. There was no mention of Farrakhan’s ‘malice and division’ during the interview. [in 2005]” As always, the rules would seem to change whenever it fits the Clintons’ convenience.

FMLA came first.

“By now, we all know how over-hyped are Hillary claims about her foreign policy experience – including her claims that she negotiated peace treaties and opened borders. But there’s also hype in her claims about domestic policy.” Some enterprising dKos’ers look at the timeline and find Sen. Clinton had basically nothing to do with passing the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). The bill, originally penned in 1986 by Sen. Chris Dodd, had already been passed and vetoed twice under Papa Bush. It was then set up to go by the Democratic Congress upon Clinton’s entering office (it was HR.1 and S. 1 respectively), and was signed into law, as a fait accompli, only sixteen days after inauguration day.

Update: Former House member William Lacey Clay notes: “‘She never had anything to with it. I just don’t think you ought to play games with that kind of stuff.’“

Stupid Vote Tricks.

“The momentum is shifting to us right now. If we are the leader in the popular vote and we have closed the gap in pledged delegates, that’s a very persuasive argument.” In a revealing piece in the Sunday Times, the Clinton campaign seems to concede it has lost the delegate race, instead placing their hopes on the popular vote. (At the moment, they’re down 600,000, not counting rogue states Florida and Michigan.) This is basically akin to the New England Patriots arguing they should be given the Super Bowl trophy because, even if they lost the game, they got more yards. (They didn’t, but you get what I mean.) Of course, since getting that lead looks hard for them, the Clinton campaign reserve the right to try to change the most-important stat again if need be. (“The argument is being made privately as winning the most votes still presents a formidable challenge. She might, in the end, have to rest her case on her ability to win key battleground states.“)

The Times piece is also notable because it has Bill Bradley calling the Clintons out (again) as liars: “‘The bigger the lie, the better the chance they think they’ve got. That’s been their whole approach,’ he said. ‘She’s going to lose a whole generation of people who got involved in politics believing it could be something different.’“

Meanwhile, the sinking Clinton campaign finds a lifeline in this front-page WP story on undecided superdelegates, which states that [a] many undecideds seem to be planning to wait for now and, more troubling, [b] at least a few undecided super-delegates are comfortable with overturning the pledged delegate count. Says Oregon super Bill Bradbury: ““If the pledged-delegate total is within 100 votes or whatever, I don’t think there’s a great deal of significance in that.’” Hmm. Well, I’d be more concerned about this statement if all the data didn’t suggest Obama is a stronger national candidate with bigger coattails (see also tonight’s Foster win), so I’m guessing supers would be more inclined to back Obama in the end anyway. That being said, I’m absolutely positive Bradbury here significantly understates what the reaction would be if the supers reject the pledged delegate leader en masse. It would mean clear defeat in November, if not a lasting party schism. Fortunately, whatever Bradbury’s personal opinion, this scenario isn’t at all likely, particularly given that super-supers with more pull — Pelosi, Biden, Richardson, etc. — have all specifically argued against Bradbury’s position.

Giddyup, Cowboy State.

The math just got even harder. Sen. Obama wins the Wyoming caucuses 61%-38%, meaning he’s picked up three more delegates on Clinton (7-5 + 1 add-on UAD), i.e. 75% of her ostensibly game-changing 4-delegate victory last Tuesday. Next stop, Mississippi on Tuesday.

Hillary, quit calling me.

“‘I think it would be really wonderful if me and Barack Obama could get together and make a nice counter ad,’ Knowles said.” Enterprising local journalists in Bonney Lake, WA find the little girl in Clinton’s fearmongering 3am ad and discover, not only that she’s old enough to vote, but that she’s a strong supporter of, and former precinct captain for, Barack Obama. Apparently, the ad used stock footage from 8 years ago, which should help to quell the talk of subliminal racism on the Clinton campaign’s part. (I don’t happen to subscribe to that intentional-racism theory, or this one. But, if this thing goes on another month, who knows where Team Clinton will draw the line?)

Foreign Policy Experience? She has none.

“It was her coming that helped. But she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations…This had nothing to do with her competence.” The Chicago Tribune delves into Clinton’s dubious claims of foreign policy experience and finds not only that she has little to none, but that she is basically lying about what she’s accomplished. “Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she ‘helped to bring peace’ to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo.“

Let’s take ’em one by one. Regarding Ireland, historian Tim Pat Coogan refers to Clinton’s role as “part of the stage effects, the optics, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble today called Clinton’s claims “silly”: “I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.” The Telegraph digs up coverage of the one meeting Clinton attended in Belfast, and it wasn’t exceptionally hard-hitting. In fact, it was a photo-op. “Conversation ‘seemed a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times’ and Mrs Clinton admired a stainless steel tea pot, which was duly given to her, for keeping the brew ‘so nice and hot’.” The Kitchen Debate, it wasn’t.

Regarding Macedonia and Kosovo, that border was opened the day before Senator Clinton arrived. Update: The picture above is from Clinton’s Kosovo trip. As you can see, part of her delicate negotiations to get this already-open border opened involved singing with Chelsea, Sheryl Crow, and some poor military officials forced to humor the wife of the Commander in Chief.

As TPM’s Josh Marshall aptly summed up, “Let’s get real and admit that Hillary Clinton is getting the free ride of all free rides on her repeated invocations of foreign policy experience.“

Going back to Cali.

California officially certifies its delegate count from Super Tuesday, and, as it turns out, Senator Obama has picked up eight more delegates there. That’s twice as many as Clinton received on her big “blowout” day of March 4th, when, delegate-wise, she won Ohio and, it seems, lost Texas. Update: Just to clarify, I should say Obama picked up four more delegates in CA, which Clinton in turn lost. So Obama +4, Clinton -4, a.k.a. an eight-delegate swing.

Power Games.

Ugh. Another day of pettiness from Hillary Clinton and her crew — we have to sit through seven more weeks of this, just because pundits are bad at math? Sigh…anyway, after referring to Hillary Clinton somewhat off-the-record as a “monster,” (while promoting a book in England, and not speaking for the Obama campaign), author, journalist and genocide expert Samantha Power resigns as an Obama foreign policy advisor. This is mainly because the Clinton campaign called for her head (less than a day after Wolfson’s Ken Starr analogy, mind you) and apparently deemed her original apology not sufficient.

To put things into perspective, when SNL’s Tina Fey called Clinton a “bitch” several times over two weeks ago on national television, Bill Clinton called to thank her. (And, when Hillary Clinton suggested somebody kill Ralph Nader back in 2000, everyone just shrugged it off. Somehow, that seems worse to me than calling someone a “monster”…I’ll never understand why that didn’t cause more of a stir.)

In any case, Power is out (for now — I expect she can come back once the Clinton people internalize the reality of their loss.) To be sure, her remark was unfortunate in public, but she did apologize. But I guess the Clinton campaign just has a problem with strong women speaking their mind, when that mind is directed against Her Eminence. And particularly when the strong woman in question just happens to have way more national security cred than Hillary Clinton, and thus puts the lie to her recent slobbering over John McCain: While Samantha Power was risking her life to research The Problem from Hell and get a handle on the world’s most nightmarish dilemma, Hillary Clinton was toodling around Bosnia with a security detail, Sheryl Crow, and Sinbad. O, beware, my lady, of jealousy; It is the green-eyed monster which doth mock the meat it feeds on.

Update: Clinton dispatches Wesley Clark and Jamie Rubin to pile on. Charming. Rubin’s always been a stooge, but I thought Gen. Clark had more class than this. Guess I was wrong.

Bradley: Clinton’s not vetted.

“I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband’s unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important — you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.” Former Senator Bill Bradley, who endorsed Obama back in January, asks some tough questions about the Clinton library’s shady financing. (And before anyone accuses Sen. Bradley of raising a phantom scandal, consider Frank Giustra and Boratgate.) Update: In related news, USA Today reports that Clinton library archivists are blocking the release of papers involving the Clinton pardons.

The Numbers Game: 55, 3, 76.

“[It’s] a humbling achievement, and I am very grateful for your support,” Obama said in another fundraising appeal. “No campaign has ever raised this much in a single month in the history of presidential primaries. But more important than the total is how we did it — more than 90 percent of donations were $100 or less.” The fundraising numbers for February are released, and Sen. Obama raised a record-breaking $55 million (i.e., a full $20 million more than Sen. Clinton.) In other good campaign news, Obama picked up three more supers today (to Clinton’s one: Barbara Boxer.) And TPM’s FlyontheWall explains why the 76 UADs (unpledged add-on delegates) further complicate Clinton’s situation. Did I mention this was over?