Hillary knew of Edwards problem and kept mouth shut

That’s the word from former Hillary Clinton communications manager Howard Wolfson, who claims that if Edwards had come clean, it would have gotten Clinton the nomination.

Boy, that’s a toughie to judge. But I’ll give it 50-50 that Clinton could have won.

Why Clinton lost – in one word

Iowa.

Specifically, the prognostication of advisors like Harold Ickes that she had an excellent chance of winning Iowa, combined with the orchestrated outrage that she might skip it.

She should have said “screw it” to the faux outrage, and like Bill in 1992, skipped it.

But, the decision to “cave” to Iowa Dems’ outrage and get back into full campaign mode there at a late stage showed, even before Dodd nailed her in the debate, that she was vulnerable.

It also showed her campaign still wasn’t organized. She didn’t have a series of talking points about WHY to stay out of Iowa.

Other possible factors? Dodd exposing her vulnerability to attack, not inevitability, specifically over then-New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give illegal immigrants drivers’ licenses.

As for the caucus vs. primary issue, the story linked above notes that she actually won the Nevada caucuses, so that’s a myth as much as reality.

Meanwhile, the New York Times has a round-up of pundits with their takes on her demise’s causes. Worth a read.

Hillary – let them eat campaign debt

Word is she’ll step aside IF Obama’s campaign retires her campaign debt AND pays her/Bill back the money she personally loaned her campaign.

As Josh Marshall notes, the first part, paying off people she owes, isn’t controversial.

The second part, given her tax returns earlier this year, is HUGELY controversial.

Hey, Hill, if you’re that worried about the money, you should have quit a month ago.

I guess the “elitists” that make up Obama’s small-cap donors (at least in the mythical retelling) might not like paying you back your own money.

Hillary in more fiscal trouble – Bill to the rescue?

She has lent her own campaign an additional $6.4 million. Guess it’s time for the Slicker to start doing more speeches at $100K a pop or to have his foundation cozy up to some new shady international wheeler-dealers.

Doorknob, would you love to be a fly on that wall after the election is over?

Clinton aides losing hope

Yes, Obama, not Clinton, was the one who said Indiana would be the “tiebreaker” between a Clinton win in Pennsylvania and an Obama win in North Carolina. And, yes, he once talked about winning the state, ignorant of possible downstate bias and GOP crossovers.

Nonetheless, even if Clinton holds on by the narrowest of margins, it’s a statistical tie, she’s running out of “comebacks,” and she won with the support of a lot people who wn’t vote for her in November. No wonder some of her aides are becoming more disparaged.

“Absent some sort of miracle on May 31, it’s going to be tough for us,” said a senior Clinton official who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to be frank. “We lost this thing in February. We're doing everything we can now . . . but it's just an uphill battle.”

And, if Timmeh Russert, dean of Sunday’s TV talking coneheads, says Obama has wrapped it up, then it’s time to be more discouraged, right?

“We now know who the Democratic nominee is gonna be, and no one’s gonna dispute it,” before listing reasons why it would behoove Clinton to reconsider going forward with her campaign “hoping against all hope.”

That said, another Clintonista “player” is offering a different take, one not helpful to either candidate.

A Clinton adviser said the situation was increasingly becoming one in which “she cannot be nominated and he can’t get elected.”

I don’t know if the second half of the statement is true or not, but the (Jeremiah) Wright elephant in Obama’s living room isn’t going to do anything but go on a steroid diet if he gets the nomination.

On the other hand, the electability issue of Obama winning southern states with large black percentages in Democratic primaries, but states that haven’t gone Democratic since 1976 for Carter, and 1960 before that, is a legitimate matter of discussion and debate.

Rush 7 percent effect in Indiana?

Did Rush Limbaugh’s “marching orders” for Indiana Republicans to cross over and vote Hillary really make up 7 percent of the Democratic electorate, as Obama claims?

Indiana exit polls showed that four in ten Democrats who said they would vote for McCain over Clinton in a general election nonetheless voted for Clinton on Tuesday; however, just twelve percent who would vote for McCain over Obama voted for the Illinois senator.

However, as Obama has lost Indiana by less than 7 percentage points, the most obvious thing is that this is Obama spin: “Real Democrats would have given Obama the state.” That of course ignores crossovers for Obama in places like New Hampshire.

Besides, other folks, like Crooks and Liars, minimize the Rush effect. (Will popping Rush give you a headache in the men’s room?)

Zogby says his latest polling has Barack Obama with a statistically insignificant 2 percent lead over Hillary Clinton in Indiana.

Two issues, though.

First, every other poll of significance disagrees with Zogby.

Second, Indiana has open primaries, and in downstate GOP strongholds, there’s First, every other poll of significance a lot of party-switching — enough that some areas are worried about running out of Democratic ballots.

Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham didn’t go on the air in the past week urging GOPers to vote Hillary, so I have no guess whom this benefits. Hillary-haters could want her on the ballot, or Republicans who think Obama has too much Jeremiah Wright baggage could want him on the ballot.

And, who knows how well any of the polls are at picking up on ballot switchers?

We’ll find out in a couple of hours.

That said, if Zogby is right, Clinton needs to face reality and pack it in.

I don’t get one thing about Democratic debates

Why let ABC, or whomever, dictate who the moderator(s) will be? Charlie Gibson is apparently godawful, as this brief of question subjects shows, or Josh Marshall’s full rundown of inane questions, followed up by answers that are genuinely befuddled to the most inane of them (like trying to get both Clinton and Obama to take the Mario Cuomo “pledge” of agreeing to nominate the other one as his/her running mate), or politically spinning to others of them.

I mean, this is the day of not just the Internet, but of many people having broadband connections.
Josh suggests using the League of Women Voters.

Why not go one better? Have Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean pick a moderator and produce the whole thing in house? If a TV network wants to run it, fine; if not, stream it live on the Internet.

I mean, there’s no need to put up with a Charlie Gibson, or a Tim Russert, in these days.

According to Media Matters, tonight’s debate is not the first example of Gibson’s debate-moderating inanity.