NYC: The Fix was In?

“At the sprawling Riverside Park Community apartments at Broadway and 135th Street, Alician D. Barksdale said she had voted for Mr. Obama and her daughter had, too, by absentee ballot. ‘Everyone around here voted for him,’ she said.” City election officials find “major discrepancies” between the reported and actual vote totals here in NYC. In 80 of the city’s 6106 election districts — including the nearby 94th election district right here in Harlem (I’m in the adjacent 93rd) — Obama was reported to have the grand total of 0 votes. (Clinton now leads the 94th 261-136, which frankly still sounds off for this neighborhood.) “In an even more heavily black district in Brooklyn — where the vote on primary night was recorded as 118 to 0 for Mrs. Clinton — she now barely leads, 118 to 116.“

Local party officials here in Sen. Clinton’s home state are calling the mistakes a result of human error. “‘I’m sure it’s a clerical error of some sort,’ Mr. Wright said. ‘Being around elections for the last 25 years, no candidate receives zero votes.’” (Hmm. Funny how these poll officials, instead of transposing a few numbers or somesuch, just accidentally wrote down a big fat zero.) In any case, the official count is what really matters in the end anyway, and — if this trend keeps up — there’s a possibility Sen. Obama might pick up a few more delegates here in the city.

More to the point, in an age where we can squeeze in 5-10 ATMs a city block, and all of them seem to know exactly how much (or how little) money I have, why are we still relying on a half-century-old voting system that allows for these sorts of “human error”? It’s the 21st century, people. Update: Although most reports seem to indicate the problem was legitimately human error, Hizzoner claims fraud.

The Clinton Spin gets Even Dumber.

As the Clinton campaign begins pulling out all the stops in Wisconsin, Mark Penn, he of the “impressionable elites” and “insignificant states,” offers up another doozy: “Winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election. If it were, every nominee would win because every nominee wins Democratic primaries.” So…winning primaries is not a good way to pick a candidate now. Can we still get Mike Gravel as our standard-bearer, then?

For his part, Clinton adviser and superdelegate Harold Ickes (son of the prominent progressive and New Dealer) at least conceded the importance of winning, although he too is putting his faith on a bailout by the supers (and/or a successful joint pincer movement with McCain.) According to him, the campaign will go until June, whereupon supers will flock to Clinton. “‘At or about – certainly, shortly after – the seventh of June, Hillary’s going to nail down this nomination,’ Ickes said. ‘She’s going to have a majority of the delegates.’” Sorry, not bloody likely. (About that June 7 match-up, tho, Sen. Obama recently picked up the endorsement of Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo-Vila, so even that final Clinton firewall looks to be suffering from a few cracks.)

The Heads Convene.

“At a private dinner that Mr. Edwards, a former senator, held at his home last Saturday for a dozen close friends, he said he had spoken recently with Mr. Gore about the benefits of neutrality, someone who was at the dinner said…Mr. Edwards said he intended to remain on the fence for the time being, the person said.” It looks possible no more major endorsements will be in the offing for either Democratic candidate. Perhaps noticing the daunting math that faces Sen. Clinton’s campaign, the big undeclared Dems seem to be envisioning themselves instead as much-needed brokers of the peace. “A number of senior Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and three candidates who have dropped out of the 2008 race, former Senator John Edwards and Senators Christopher J. Dodd and Joseph R. Biden Jr., have spoken with Mr. Gore in recent days. None have endorsed a candidate, although Ms. Pelosi made comments on Friday that were widely seen as supportive of Mr. Obama when it came to the process the party should use to make its choice of candidate.“

Finally, New Mexico.

Eight days after the fact, Sen. Clinton picks up a win in New Mexico by 2000 votes (of 150,000 cast), giving her a 2-delegate edge (14 to 12) in the state. But, unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, New Mexico was a caucus state, and thus “not significant.” Oh well, sorry, y’all.

UFCW for Obama. SEIU next?

“Senator Obama understands the needs of working people. As a community organizer, he understands that America must restore the balance between working America and corporate America. He will fight to level the playing field on behalf of workers across our country. He will fight to regain the rights and protections workers have lost after too many years of the Bush Administration.” Sen. Obama picks up some key labor endorsements. First up, the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, which is 1.3 million members strong and “has a powerful presence and a strong organization in key primary states such as Wisconsin, Hawaii, Texas and Ohio.” And, though it hasn’t been announced for sure yet, Politico‘s Ben Smith says an SEIU endorsement is imminent. “‘It’s done,’ said one person close to the union.” Let’s hope so — we’ll know tomorrow.

Also, we should probably expect Bill Clinton to dust off the union-busting rhetoric.

Update: SEIU endorses. “‘There has never been a fight in Illinois or a fight in the nation where our members have not asked Barack Obama for assistance and he has not done everything he could to help us,’ Andy Stern, the union’s president, told reporters in announcing the decision.“

The Hightower Cavalry.

“‘The Obama campaign is a phenomenon,’ says Hightower, who will make his formal endorsement soon but spoke this week with Laura Flanders and this writer on Radio Nation. ‘Í am impressed with the tone of his campaign and, most of all, I am impressed with the people who have surged behind his campaign –- especially the young people,’ the Texan says of Obama.” Well-known Texas populist Jim Hightower gets set to back Barack Obama.

Speaking of much-loved Texas populists: Alas, the late Molly Ivins is no longer with us. But, she made her own feelings pretty clear back in the day: “I’d like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.”

The Trickle of the Supers…

I posted earlier today on superdelegate Christine Samuels switching from Clinton to Obama. Now, according to the AP, it seems Clinton may be losing a few more: Based on his district’s overwhelming support for the Senator from Illinois, Rep. David Scott (D-GA) has switched to Clinton from Obama, and “two other superdelegates, Sophie Masloff of Pennsylvania and Nancy Larson of Minnesota, are uncommitted, having dropped their earlier endorsements of Clinton.” And, perhaps buttressing TNR’s recent argument that Clinton’s support among Black establishment figures is wavering, none other than Rep. John Lewis goes on record about a possible switch: “‘It could (happen). There’s no question about it. It could happen with a lot of people…we can count and we see the clock,’ he said.” (Which reminds me: A good place to keep track of superdelegate shifts, if you haven’t found it yet, is DemConWatch.)

Update: It’s official. John Lewis switches to Obama. “‘In recent days, there is a sense of movement and a sense of spirit,’ said Mr. Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who endorsed Mrs. Clinton last fall. ‘Something is happening in America and people are prepared and ready to make that great leap…’I’ve been very impressed with the campaign of Senator Obama,’ Mr. Lewis said. ‘He’s getting better and better every single day.’” Update 2: Or did he? Now, everyone’s confused.

Love is a battlefield.

A Valentine’s afternoon campaign roundup:

“I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate to restore American credibility, to restore our confidence to be moral and to bring people together to solve the complex issues such as the economy, the environment and global stability.” Former Republican (now Independent and Dubya critic) Senator Lincoln Chafee officially endorses Obama. The Senator from Illinois also picked up a Clinton superdelegate in Christine “Roz” Samuels (meaning, as MSNBC points out, a 2-point swing in the superdelegate column.) And Al Gore, meanwhile, has confirmed to TNR that he will not be endorsing anyone. “Basically, Gore appears to be preserving for himself the option of stepping in and declaring a winner in the event of a war over superdelegates, and thus being seen as a kind of mediating figure, rather than as someone trying to influence the outcome” Given yesterday’s threat of a party meltdown by the Clinton campaign, that’ll probably be more useful for Sen. Obama anyway.

Meanwhile, in an interview with WMAL, Bill Clinton just makes up random stuff as he goes along. (I was going to say he was commiting seppuku to his legacy, but, as Wikipedia just reminded me, seppuku involves dying with honor.) “Of his wife’s recent travails, he said, ‘the caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.’” (If you’re keeping score at home, be sure to add “upper-income voters” to the 20 states in the “not-significant” column.) “‘I think she has been the underdog ever since Iowa,’ Clinton said. “She’s had, you know, a lot of the politicians, like Senator Kennedy, opposed to her…He said they’d done well considering their slim budget. ‘We’ve gotten plenty of delegates on a shoestring,’ he said. He did not mention that his wife’s campaign has raised more than $140 million.“

The best news for the Clinton team today: As of this past weekend, Sen. Clinton still held a big lead in Ohio (between 14 and 21 points, depending on the poll.) Of course, these were taken before the Potomac results and before Sen. Obama has started campaigning on the ground, and they still don’t show the kind of massive spread Sen. Clinton needs to take back the pledged delegate lead. But I’m sure they’ll take solace where they can find it. Update: I’ve tried to swear off taking much out of polls of late, but there’s an interesting further discussion of the Wisconsin and Ohio poll numbers here.)

Update 2: “That’s the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent gives speeches, I offer solutions.” With really no other recourse at this point, Sen. Clinton (and her husband) try the blunderbuss of negativity approach. I’d point out the many flaws in Sen. Clinton’s screed today, but, as it turns out, the Obama team has already done it for me. I’ll just leave it at this: Can anyone point to a single “solution” Sen. Clinton has ever offered and carried through for the American people? And, no, running health care reform into the ground in 1994 doesn’t count. Well, to be fair, I guess she did once go out on a limb to put an end to the horrible scourge of flag-burning. Now, that takes leadership.

Clinton: If we have to, we’ll steal it.

It’s sad to have to put aside the Valentine’s Day cheer so soon after midnight, but there’s no other way to put it: The Clinton campaign have lost their damn fool minds. At first, all seemed well. In an article by NYT‘s Adam Nagourney, Clinton officials reiterated what Howard Fineman reported last night: that the Clinton campaign basically admitted they wouldn’t match Sen. Obama’s pledged delegate total. “Mrs. Clinton’s advisers acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to catch up in the race for pledged delegates even if she succeeded in winning Ohio and Texas in three weeks and Pennsylvania in April. They said the Democratic Party’s rules, which award delegates relatively evenly among the candidates based on the proportion of the vote they receive, would require her to win by huge margins in those states to match Mr. Obama in delegates won through voting.” This is true, and it’s the crux of their dilemma. Their last hope lies in racking up massive and decisive wins in Ohio and Texas, which is highly unlikely but worth the old college try. But, here’s the warning sign: “With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count.“

Sure enough, they have. According to the Boston Globe, forget Ohio and Texas: The Clinton campaign has said it will not concede the race, even if it is clear they’ve lost the delegate count on June 7 (Puerto Rico). “Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton’s communications director, Howard Wolfson.” Never give up, never surrender! So, in effect, they’re saying they’ll risk an ugly and suicidal party schism, in the vain hope that the superdelegates don’t decide to renounce them en masse once they come in second, which they’re now basically admitting they will. And how are they going to convince the supers to back their play? Enter campaign strategist Mark Penn: “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.“

So…sorry you had to hear it this way, but Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, the Virgin Islands, and Washington: you are not significant. Or at least according to the Clinton campaign. But please do vote Democratic in November.

As I said above, I never expected the Clinton campaign to make any drastic decisions until after March 4. I mean, I know they themselves aren’t big on the audacity of hope, but you never know: They might well be able to pull out the huge margins they need in both Ohio and Texas to stay mathematically viable. Stranger things have happened, some in this very election, and after the New Hampshire comeback, I’m not going to count them out until those returns come in. But, right now, they’re flat-out embarrassing themselves. [Globe and MSNBC links via TPM.]

Update: The Prospect‘s Ezra Klein is not happy: “If Hillary Clinton does not win delegates out of a majority of contested primaries and caucuses, her aides are willing to rip the party apart to secure the nomination, to cheat in a way that will rend the Democratic coalition and probably destroy Clinton’s chances in the general election…This demonstrates not only a gross ruthlessness on the part of Clinton’s campaign, but an astonishingly cavalier attitude towards the preservation of the progressive coalition. To be willing to blithely rip it to shreds in order to wrest a nomination that’s not been fairly earned is not only low, but a demonstration of deeply pernicious priorities.“

A blip, or two ships passing?

It’s just one poll, of an almost meaningless sample, now that we’re past Super Tuesday. As we all know, polls have often not been kind to Obama supporters over the past month or so. And the last thing the Obama campaign needs right now is a false sense of security. But, since I’ve been willing these lines to cross every day over the past few weeks, screw it: I’m blogging it: Obama finally pulls ever-so-slightly ahead of Clinton in the Gallup daily tracker, 45%-44%. Onward and upward. Update: Sen. Obama takes his first statistical lead, 49%-42%. But will it hold?