Obama news : The real Clinton mistakes

A post-mortem on the Clinton campaign is premature, but it’s never too early to learn from mistakes. While everyone agrees mistakes were made, the nature of those errors remains a matter of debate.

• Early States vs. Many States — Some have opined that the Clinton campaign spent too much time and money on Iowa and New Hampshire at the expense of later states. I would suggest she dedicated too little to Iowa and the optimum to New Hampshire.

By the end of December, Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) had each raised just over $100 million and, in principle, both had about the same number of campaign days. Yet the Clinton campaign allowed the Obama team to outspend them on Iowa TV by 40 percent and to have about the same advantage in campaign events. If she had done more events and more TV in Iowa, would Hillary Clinton have won? Impossible to prove the counterfactual, but it couldn’t have hurt, and there is no doubt that had Clinton won Iowa, she would be the presumptive nominee today.

Alternatively, had she not won New Hampshire, Clinton would have been forced from the race months ago.

So while some of her Iowa spending could have been misdirected, the truth is Clinton spent too little on what matters in Iowa and about the right amount in New Hampshire.

• Micro vs. Macro — Readers of Mark Penn’s Microtrends argue that his micro-messages failed against Obama’s macro-message of change. That too is not quite right. Clinton did have a macro-message early on — experience. It was just the wrong message. Every poll for two years demonstrated that Democrats prefer change over experience by 2 to 1. Good campaigns have both macro- and micro-messages, and in the very best, the two are inextricably linked.

• A Message vs. A List — While Clinton did develop a macro-message, for too much of the campaign she merely had a list of popular proposals. A strong message beats a good list.

• Big States vs. All States — To all appearances the Clinton campaign operated from the theory that only big states count; “small” states didn’t, and that was an error as big as they come. Clinton won more than twice as many states with over 100 delegates, while Obama won nearly three times as many states with under 50 delegates. Yet Clinton’s net advantage in those big states amounted to just three delegates, while Obama’s massive victories in the largely uncontested small states gave him a 55-delegate advantage over Clinton.

Put differently, Obama got a greater delegate advantage from his win in Idaho than Clinton did from her Ohio victory, and he generated a bigger delegate lead in Kansas than she wrested from New Jersey.

• Big Money vs. All Money — In the money chase, too, the Clinton campaign played by old rules, apparently unaware of just how much this game had changed. Through Feb. 29, Clinton had a nearly $7 million advantage with the big donors, though Obama led the money race overall by a staggering $39 million. The entire difference came from donors who gave $200 or less — the fruits of Obama’s effective Internet strategy.

By its own admission the Clinton campaign left this very profitable stone largely unturned until she was forced to lend her campaign money. Not everyone can turn the Internet into a gusher, but the simple fact is that her campaign did not work the medium nearly as hard as Obama did, and it paid off for him. That’s why he is once again wildly outspending her on TV, this time in Pennsylvania, putting a once-sure Clinton win in jeopardy.

Lots for everybody to learn.

Obama news : Obama skeptical of poll numbers

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama believes that Hillary Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania is actually much larger than the polls will have you believe, the Illinois senator said in an interview Saturday with the Courier Times.

Obama also said that his fierce contest with Clinton for the nomination will not cause any long-term damage within the Democratic party, that Clinton should not be forced out of the race even if she loses Pennsylvania's primary and that voters are not as concerned about racial issues as the media might have you believe.

This week, several polls were released showing that Obama had closed a once-formidable lead by Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary. The polls had Clinton up by an average of nearly 7 percentage points and one even had Obama leading by 2 points, but Obama said he had no faith in those numbers.

“I don't believe in polls when I'm up and I don't believe in polls when I'm down,” Obama said in a phone interview shortly after a campaign stop in Montana. “I still think we're losing by 20. I'm joking a little.”

Obama, who sees himself as an underdog in the Pennsylvania primary, said Clinton should stay in the race even if he won that contest as long as she has support.

“I think that Sen. Clinton should be able to continue for as long as she wants to,” he said.

Obama added that the tight contests in states such as Pennsylvania, where voters have not had a say in the presidential nomination process in a generation, were, ultimately, beneficial to the party.

“It means that we're getting our voters engaged and interested,” he said.

He said he saw no lasting rift in the party caused by his battle with Clinton and said all Democrats would come together once the nomination was settled, which might not occur until the Democratic National Convention in August.

“I think that we will unify fairly quickly once the convention begins,” he said. “Whatever differences that Sen. Clinton and I have pale in comparison with the differences that we have with John McCain.”

Obama, who delivered a major speech on American race relations last month in Philadelphia, said that the race issue may be overly hyped by the media.

“I don't think it has been a big issue throughout this campaign,” said Obama, who pointed out that he has won in predominately white states like Idaho, North Dakota and Wisconsin. “I think that race was bound to have some relevance given that I'm the first African-American candidate to have come this far, but I have to say that the vast majority of Americans are much less concerned about race and gender than they are about [other issues].”

Those issues include rising gas prices, insufficient health care, job security and the war in Iraq, Obama said.

He said that the media has tried to make race a predominant issue in the campaign, trying to figure out who black voters or white voters might favor in this campaign.

“The press is absolutely trying to push and peddle this agenda,” he said.

Obama declined to comment extensively on recently released tax returns that show that Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, earned more than $109 million over the past eight years.

“There's no doubt that most of the candidates for president are better off than average Americans,” he said.

Still, Obama said he and his wife, Michelle, might better understand the financial struggles facing average Americans.

“We do have a pretty good feel for the day-to-day struggles that people go through,” he said.

Obama also declined to comment on whether Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy's, D-8, support for his campaign might lead to a spot for Murphy in the Obama administration if he is eventually elected president.

“Patrick Murphy is an extraordinary talent and he will always have a spot in my heart,” he said.

He said he was “looking forward” to working with Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, on veterans' issues and war policy if he is elected.

Obama news : Obama Leading Clinton in NC

In North Carolina, Barack Obama has opened up a twenty-three percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that Obama attracts 56% of the vote while Clinton earns 33%. A month ago, Obama’s lead was just seven percentage points.

While the absolute numbers are different, the trend is similar to results from Pennsylvania where Obama gained ten-points on Clinton during the month of March.

Perhaps the only disturbing news for Obama in the survey is that most Clinton voters (56%) say they are not likely to vote for the Illinois Senator in the general election against John McCain. A month ago, 45% of Clinton voters said they were not likely to vote for Obama against McCain.

There remains an enormous racial divide in the North Carolina data. Obama leads 86% to 9% among African-American voters. Clinton holds a 47% to 38% advantage among white voters in the Tar Heel State. A month ago, Obama led by fifty-three points among African-Americans while Clinton led by twenty points among White voters.

Obama is viewed favorably by 75% of the state’s Likely Primary Voters, up three points from a month ago. Clinton is viewed favorably by 66%, down four since early March.

Nationally, Obama has the edge over Clinton in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Poll: Obama has double digit lead nationally

Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama extended his lead nationally over Sen. Hillary Clinton Monday according to the latest national polls.

The Gallup Poll conducted March 27-29 with a margin of error of 3 percentage points shows the Illinois Senator has a 10 percent lead over the New York Senator among Democrats, marking the first time since early February Gallup polls have shown either candidate with a double digit lead. In February, Gallup showed Clinton held an 11 percent advantage over Obama.

Last week’s Pew Poll also confirmed Obama had weathered the media storm surrounding the Reverend Wright controversy and maintained his lead.

Despite pressure from some powerful Obama supporters and being behind nationally in the polls, Clinton said the race should not end before all votes had been cast. "I didn't think we believed that in America. I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everyone a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said.

Looking to the critical state of Pennsylvania, Clinton holds a 12 percent lead ahead of the state’s April 22 primary, according to the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll released earlier this month.

Both candidates continue to campaign heavily in the state of Pennsylvania Monday, where there are 158 pledged delegates up for grabs.

Update: CNN poll of polls released Monday, which includes the results of several recent major surveys, shows Hillary Clinton with a 14 percent lead in Pennsylvania over Barack Obama.

Steady stream of party leaders moving to Obama

Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota is expected to endorse Sen. Obama Monday, according to a Democrat familiar with her plans. Meanwhile, North Carolina's seven Democratic House members are poised to endorse Sen. Obama as a group -- just one has so far -- before that state's May 6 primary, several Democrats say.
Helping to drive the endorsements is a fear that the Obama-Clinton contest has grown toxic and threatens the Democratic Party's chances against Republican John McCain in the fall.

Sen. Clinton rejects that view. Over the weekend, she reiterated her intent to stay in the race beyond the last contest in early June -- and all the way to the party's convention in Denver, if necessary.
"There are some folks saying we ought to stop these elections," she said Saturday in Indiana, which also has a May 6 primary. "I didn't think we believed that in America. I thought we of all people knew how important it was to give everyone a chance to have their voices heard and their votes counted."
Sen. Obama told reporters, "My attitude is that Sen. Clinton can run as long as she wants."
In earlier eras, the standoff between the two candidates might have been resolved by party elders acting behind the scenes. But no Democrat today has the power to knock heads and resolve the mess. Party Chairman Howard Dean says he was "dumbfounded" at the suggestion by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy Friday that Sen. Clinton should pull out.
"Having run for president myself, nobody tells you when to get in, and nobody tells you when to get out," Mr. Dean said. "That's about the most personal decision you can make after all the time and effort you put into it."
New York Sen. Clinton still hopes that by turning in strong performances in the final primaries, she can blunt the momentum of her rival from Illinois and make the case that she is best-positioned to take on Sen. McCain. With Mr. Dean, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Al Gore and other party leaders remaining neutral, the question is whether the trend of party figures endorsing Sen. Obama will build enough momentum to tip the race.
The expected move by Minnesota's Sen. Klobuchar follows Friday's endorsement of Sen. Obama by Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22.
Both senators had planned to remain neutral, according to party officials, but decided to weigh in as the Democrats' campaign became more negative and Sen. McCain was free to exploit the confusion looking to the November election.
One North Carolinian confirmed that at least several of the state's House members would go public in favor of Sen. Obama before long. Meanwhile, elected officials in other states with upcoming contests, including Indiana, Montana and Oregon, are weighing whether to endorse Sen. Obama.
What makes such endorsements significant is that they're from superdelegates. These delegates -- members of Congress, governors and other party officials -- can vote for whomever they want at the Democratic convention in August. Sen. Obama has a slight lead over Sen. Clinton in the pledged-delegate count -- the delegates won during primaries and caucuses -- but neither can amass enough pledged delegates for a majority. That makes the vote of the superdelegates decisive.
Since the "Super Tuesday" primaries on Feb. 5, Sen. Obama has won commitments from 64 superdelegates and Sen. Clinton has gotten nine. Sen. Obama has a total of 217 superdelegates in his camp while Sen. Clinton has 250, and her margin has been shrinking with each week. Sen. Clinton would have several more in her tally, but they're from Michigan, and delegates from Michigan and Florida won't be seated -- at least for now -- because both states defied party rules and held their primaries earlier than permitted.
"I think that says a lot about just where people are and what they're thinking," says former Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle, an Obama supporter. "And I think the numbers are just going to keep getting better" for Sen. Obama. Counting Sen. Klobuchar, Sen. Obama leads 13-11 among their Democratic colleagues in the Senate.

Even raising the prospect of a convention fight could backfire for Sen. Clinton by antagonizing the superdelegates she needs. Many superdelegates are on the ballot themselves this year, and the last thing they want is a chaotic convention that plays into the hands of Republicans.
In interviews, some House Democrats said Sen. Obama has the edge in the chamber. They noted that he has proved himself the stronger fund-raiser and has attracted more new voters to the party than anyone in recent memory -- both advantages that could benefit other Democrats. They worry that Sen. Clinton's high negative ratings in polls would incite more Republicans to mobilize against her and the Democratic ticket.
Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a former presidential candidate and a past party chairman, told National Journal Friday that Sen. Obama's nomination is "a foregone conclusion" and "enough is enough." Sen. Dodd has endorsed Sen. Obama.
Mr. Dean, the party chairman, is urging uncommitted superdelegates to take sides no later than July 1, and effectively name the nominee. "If we go into the convention divided, it's pretty likely we'll come out of the convention divided," he said.
Democrats across the board, he said, "are haranguing me to show leadership." But they're often partisans for one candidate or the other, he added. Meanwhile, he said he is conferring with other party leaders, including Mrs. Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada; former Vice President Al Gore; civil-rights veteran and Clinton confidante Vernon Jordan; former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo; and Jesse Jackson and his son, Chicago Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
"Most of their advice is, 'Let this play out, let's get through the primaries,' " Mr. Dean said. "And I think that's right....Voters have to have their say. It's painful, because that means we've got another two months of this."

Clinton, Obama supporters wrangle over delegates

Email Picture

Less than a month ago, Texas Democrats turned out in huge numbers for the presidential nominating contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, confident that, no matter who won, the party would have a popular, well-financed candidate.

But that exuberance is gone now.


Across the state this weekend, tense confrontations -- even shoving matches -- erupted as partisans for Clinton and Obama battled over how to interpret the March 4 election results and how to choose delegates to the Texas Democratic convention.

At one particularly raucous session Saturday at Texas Southern University, a leading Clinton backer, U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, was booed by hundreds of Obama supporters, and police were called later to break up heated exchanges that left some in tears.

"It's bedlam," said Houston lawyer Daniel J. Shea, a Clinton backer.

Democrat-on-Democrat clashes over delegates have been playing out in Iowa, Colorado, Florida and other states -- the latest indication that the feel-good nomination race of the era has veered into a political ditch.

The contentious battle in Texas shows the high cost of this unending campaign. To hold his delegate lead, Obama has kept a team of 65 paid organizers and lawyers in the state this month, while Clinton has 45.

As the feud rages -- even in states that voted weeks or months ago -- each side has its own game plan for victory. For Obama, it means highlighting his lead in delegates to the party's national convention in Denver. For Clinton, it means lengthening the campaign so that she can use every tactic to narrow her delegate deficit and to win upcoming primaries in her bid to raise doubts about Obama's electability in the fall.

The candidates have also become far more combative, and that hostility has party leaders worried. In a year that looked to be a Democratic romp, Obama and Clinton are burning money, erasing goodwill and eviscerating each other's reputation while the presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, prepares to kick off his general-election campaign with a nationwide tour designed to highlight of military and congressional experience. On Saturday, Clinton told the Washington Post that she was prepared to take her campaign all the way to the party convention in August.

"This thing has turned from being an adventure to being a grind," said Robert M. Shrum, a Democratic strategist who managed John F. Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Polls published last week showed some of the dangers: McCain has gained ground against both Democrats, and at least 20% of each Democratic candidate's supporters now say they would consider abandoning the party in November if their candidate is not the nominee.

The potential for anger is more pronounced -- and the consequences more dire -- than in most campaigns because this contest is being waged along the fault lines of gender and race, with the would-be first female president versus the would-be first black president.

That was starkly evident Saturday at one convention in Houston, where mostly white Clinton supporters repeatedly challenged the credentials of black Obama backers in a heavily black district that had voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Democratic leaders, who had been thrilled by the massive turnout in early-voting states, now fear the consequences not only in the presidential race but also in state and local ones.

"When you have a divided party, I think it hurts you up and down the ticket," said Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, a Democrat, who said his party cannot afford to lose seats in an evenly divided state Senate and a state House controlled by a narrow Democratic majority. "Somebody who's mad enough at one of the candidates to want to vote for John McCain is more likely to [vote] down that side of the ballot."

Bredesen has circulated a plan to stave off a potentially divisive national nominating convention in August by holding a "primary" earlier this summer among the nearly 800 superdelegates -- the party's elected officials, leaders and activists -- whose votes could decide the race and forestall the type of delegate fights now unfolding in Texas.

Another party elder, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, proposed Saturday that Clinton and Obama avert a "disaster" by agreeing to share the ticket, with the delegate winner running for president and the loser for vice president.

"If, on the other hand, the candidates refuse to work out a way to keep both constituencies firmly in the Democratic camp for the general election," Cuomo wrote in the Boston Globe, "the 2008 primary may be the story of a painfully botched grand opportunity to return our nation to the upward path and [instead] leave us mired in Iraq and government mediocrity."

Such concern prompted one prominent U.S. senator, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, an Obama supporter, to call Friday for Clinton to step aside, while Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged the candidates to find a resolution by July.

The acrimony was on sharp display Saturday in Texas as Democrats met in 280 district conventions, part of the complicated system the state uses to determine the makeup of its delegation to the national convention.

Clinton won the primary in Texas, but Obama won the caucuses that followed after the polls closed. It was those caucus results that were being challenged Saturday at conventions that drew thousands of boisterous participants.

HILLARY EXPOSED

Hillary Clinton has a solu tion to her Tuzla problem - let's talk about Rev. Je remiah Wright some more.
On the day after the CBS News aired video making a hash of Sen. Clinton's claim to have landed "under sniper fire" in Tuzla, Bosnia in 1996, she raised for the first time the issue of Barack Obama's relationship to Rev. Wright.
In this, she followed a Clinton family pattern so well-established it's almost boring: Misrepresent the truth as convenient - then, when caught, go on the offensive.
This method served the Clintons well during eight years in the White House, when Democrats exalted them for winning by any means fair or foul. But now that the Clintons' dark arts of spin and remorseless ambition are being turned on their fellow partisans, Democrats seem stunned - like the tiger handler who can't believe his big cat turned on him.
Dante couldn't have devised a more appropriate ring of hell as punishment for the party than spending a few more months with the Clintons in a dispiriting slog of a nomination battle.
Even though Tuzla has been plastered on TV news the last few days, it's unclear how much the fracas will damage Hillary. Those voters who don't already think she's untrustworthy are either blinkered partisans or haven't been paying attention (since roughly 1992). In a Gallup poll this month, 53 percent thought Hillary wasn't honest and trustworthy, while Obama and John McCain were rated trustworthy by more than 2-1 margins.
Since Hillary isn't running a character campaign, yet another nick on her credibility isn't very telling.
But Tuzla does hurt - by exposing her Walter Mitty life as a first lady who, in largely ceremonial trips abroad, apparently imagined herself engaged in high-stakes diplomacy.
On her trips, everyone else saw a feminist icon and international celebrity cheering the troops, greeting children, and meeting with local women - while she thought she was the Clinton administration's secret Kissinger.
Or that's how she's portrays herself now - out of sheer necessity: Clinton needs something to back up her famous "3 a.m." ad hitting Obama for his lack of national security credentials.
What she could legitimately argue is that she was at the center of power for two terms and knows what the pressure is like in a way Obama can't. Anyone reading between the lines would know her proverbial 3 a.m. calls had to do with the fallout from her husband's perjurous denials of his dalliance with a White House intern.
She needed something more - hence her laughable exaggerations about helping bring peace to North Ireland, negotiating a way way out of Kosovo for refugees and running under sniper fire in Tuzla.
Those claims could all be rebutted in print, and had been. But it took video of her - with no helmet or flak jacket - smiling and greeting a 8-year-old girl on the tarmac to destroy her story in an instant.
The CBS footage is the blue dress of the Hillary campaign, the lock-down evidence that can't be spun away.
Hillary's camp claims she misspoke. This abuses the term. Misspeaking is mixing something up - not manufacturing a new memory.
Of course, memory plays tricks on everyone. (Not for nothing do the Russians say, "No one lies like an eyewitness.") But being anywhere near hostile fire as a civilian is a terrifying (and sometimes perversely exhilarating) experience that gets etched into memory. There's no forgetting it or making it up.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF: Hillary could be the Nader of 2008

Yes, Hillary Rodham Clinton may still have a chance of winning the Democratic nomination. But it’s probably smaller than the chance that a continued slugfest will hand the White House to John McCain.

Consider what it would take for Senator Clinton to win.
For starters, she would have to pull ahead in the popular vote, to balance her second-place spot in number of states won and in pledged delegates. As Bill Clinton put it on March 17: “If Senator Obama wins the popular vote then the choice will be easier. But if Hillary wins the popular vote but can’t quite catch up with the delegate votes, then you have to just ask yourself which is more important and who is more likely to win in November.”
Even Mr. Clinton seemed to concede the nomination to Mr. Obama unless Mrs. Clinton wins the popular vote; without that, she doesn’t even have an argument. Unfortunately for the Clintons, almost nobody who has done the math thinks that she can win the popular vote without re-votes in Florida and Michigan.
Mrs. Clinton is more than 700,000 votes behind in the popular vote. With 10 states and territories still to vote, perhaps another six million votes could be cast if turnout is very high, by the count of Ben Smith at Politico.com.
To get the lead, she would need to win at least 56 percent of all the remaining votes — or well more than 60 percent of the votes outside of North Carolina and other states she is expected to lose. So far, though, Mrs. Clinton hasn’t won 60 percent in any state except Arkansas, where she had been the state’s first lady.
All this means that Mrs. Clinton’s chances of winning are negligible, barring some major development.
Meanwhile, the big winner of the Democratic fist-fighting is Senator McCain. A Gallup poll released Wednesday found that 19 percent of Mr. Obama’s supporters said they would vote for Mr. McCain in the general election if Mrs. Clinton were the nominee. More startling, 28 percent of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters said they would defect to Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama were the nominee.
Exit polls show the same trend. In South Carolina in January, about 70 percent of each candidate’s supporters said they would be happy if the other person ended up winning the nomination. By the Ohio and Texas primaries in March, fewer than half of each candidate’s supporters said they would be content with the other person as nominee.
Granted, tempers may cool by November. But dragging out the contest only deepens wounds and reduces time for healing: In 9 of the last 10 presidential elections, the nominee chosen first ended up winning in November. And if the Democratic nominee has been crippled, that would hurt Democrats running for other offices as well.
“It’s amazing how bitter it’s getting, and it can only get worse in the months ahead,” said Gov. Philip Bredesen, a Democrat of Tennessee, who has not taken sides. “I’d love to have a Democratic president, but I’d also love to have a Democratic Congress. If you’ve got people mad and staying home, that can’t possibly help candidates running for the Senate, candidates running for House seats, and for the State Legislature.”
Mr. Bredesen is urging superdelegates (he’s one) to hold a primary in June, so that a winner would be chosen in time to begin a healing process before the convention.
Instead, the battle is getting bloodier. Mrs. Clinton spoke this week about the contest continuing for “the next three months” — and those would surely be a toxic three months. There’s already grumbling that Mrs. Clinton’s real strategy is to destroy Mr. Obama’s chances of winning the general election so that she can compete in 2012.
Senator Clinton, who has done so much fine work on health and children’s issues for so many years and who more recently has been an outstanding senator, deserves better. Likewise, Mr. Clinton, who tackled AIDS and poverty so passionately since leaving the White House, risks tarnishing his own legacy. His poll approval ratings have dropped steadily, and he now has higher unfavorable ratings than favorable.
If Mrs. Clinton can run a high-minded, civil campaign and rein in her proxies, then she has every right to continue through the next few primaries, and the Democrats might even benefit from the bolstered attention and turnout. But if the brawl continues, then she and her husband may be remembered by many people who long admired them as having the same effect on Mr. Obama this November that Ralph Nader had on Al Gore in 2000.
Do the Clintons really want to risk becoming the Naders of 2008?

Report: Superdelegates concerned over Bosnia sniper story : CLINTON TACTICS TURN OFF SOME SUPERDELEGATES

At a time when Sen. Hillary Clinton is increasingly relying on superdelegates to vault her to the Democratic Party's nomination, a handful of undecided and pledged superdelegates are coming forward to say her campaign's tactics in recent weeks are doing more harm than good. The Democratic Party insiders say they believe Clinton's direct attacks against Sen. Barack Obama in recent days are hurting the party and its chances in November, and also say it is showing a calculated, desperate-to-win side of Clinton that they dislike. "In looking at the manner in which the candidates are campaigning, I think it would be best they focused their attention on the presumptive nominee and showed our party which one is better in campaigning against McCain," said Garry Shay, a California superdelegate, who announced his support for Clinton. Unlike some in the party, these superdelegates said they do not believe Clinton should drop out of the race. They said they are committed to the democratic process, and want to allow the states still remaining to cast their ballots. But they acknowledged Obama is the likely nominee and suggested the personal attacks were only hurting the party and its viability. The Clinton campaign has been actively wooing these delegates, believing a plurality represents the strongest, and increasingly the only, way for her to win the nomination. But one undeclared delegate, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the recent tactics are turning her and other superdelegates off. "I don't think anybody's saying 'step aside,' but 'stop with the garbage' is what people want to say," the delegate said. "Just chill a little bit." As activists committed to the party, they said, they have been impressed by Obama's ability to bring new Democrats into the fold, and they worry that Clinton is threatening that. "We like the fact that there is a candidate that has won so many states overwhelmingly," the delegate said. "We're feeling her advisors are leading her in a path that diminishes her as well as him." Several said they were angered by comments from James Carville, who called Bill Richardson "Judas" for backing Obama after serving in the Clinton White House. One delegate said Richardson's rationale for supporting Obama, and his implicit frustration at the Clintons' heavy-handed approach to garnering his support, was echoed among superdelegates. Others said they were frustrated by recent reports that Clinton embellished her description of landing in Bosnia as First Lady, and said it suggested she would do anything to win. "I don't remember what movie I saw two weeks ago; I don't necessarily remember what I had for dinner last night," one superdelegate said. "But I would remember having to duck and run from sniper fire." The final straw, though, were Clinton's comments Tuesday, when she said the Rev. Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." Several superdelegates saw it as a direct, personal attack on Obama. "I think it's very dangerous for any candidate to constantly thrum on what they perceive as sensational criticisms of their opponent," said Debra Kozikowski, an uncommitted superdelegate from Massachusetts. "I would be more likely to respond positively to discussions of issues that effect Americans versus what might be perceived as character flaws." Clinton campaign officials said Clinton's comments were a direct response to a question she received at an editorial board meeting and suggested personal attacks have gone in both directions in the primary race. The party activists said they have been receiving calls from members, a majority of whom want them to support whoever has won the popular vote. Many superdelegates are themselves elected by the Democratic Party and believe most will follow the will of party members for the party's future, and their own viability. And they say they are not buying some of the Clinton campaign's explanations as to why they should support her, whether it is her victories in large states, primary states or those likely to go Democratic in the November election. "Periodically, over the last couple of weeks, you will see a news story or get something from the campaign, and you'll go, 'How stupid do you think I am?" one uncommitted superdelegate said. "All of us watch television all the time, read the newspapers. We all play with the little charts online too. We know it is virtually impossible." One delegate said the Clinton campaign is "using Jeremiah Wright to scare white people." "A full and fair debate about issues and differences and even fights is good," the delegate said. "Mud slinging, personal attacks and lying is never good for any political fight or party. And I see a lot of that coming from one side more than the other." The delegates said there is little the party or its leaders can do to prevent the current back and forth. But some said they were increasingly in touch with Clinton campaign officials to say their support is in jeopardy. "Uncommitted delegates can come out and say, 'If you don't stop this now, we won't vote for you,'" one uncommitted superdelegate said.

Obama - Clinton and Super Delegates

With the Democratic presidential race tied to a complex delegate system, the Clinton and Obama camps went after each other Sunday over "super delegates."

Sen. Barack Obama leads in overall delegate count and among pledged delegates.

Superdelegates -- delegates to the National Democratic Convention --are not selected based on the party primaries and caucuses in each U.S. state, but rather based solely on their status as current or former elected officeholders and party officials. They are free to choose the candidate they like. 'Superdelegates' doesn't mean that they should leap over the will of the people in a single bound," joked Barack Obama's chief political strategist David Axelrod on CBS' "Face the Nation." But Sen. Hillary Clinton's communications director Howard Wolfson told CBS that those approximately 800 delegates "are supposed to vote their conscience." And Lanny Davis, a former White House special counsel supporting Clinton, told CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer" that Obama "very ironically wants to change the rules of the game in the middle of the game." Obama leads in the overall delegate count and among pledged delegates, who are assigned based on primaries and caucuses. Clinton has more superdelegates supporting her, and the overall count is close. Neither is expected to have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination before the party's convention in August. Making things even more complicated, the pledged delegate count does not directly reflect the popular vote. For example, in the Nevada caucuses, Clinton won by six points, but Obama ended up with one more delegate because of the way that state awards its delegates. Upcoming contests this week in Wisconsin, Washington state and Hawaii are expected to favor Obama, but the campaigns are looking to March 4, when delegate-rich Texas and Ohio hold their contests. Clinton is aiming for those critical victories that could help her recover in both the delegate count and the fight for political momentum. Clinton is also hoping for a win in Pennsylvania in April. The Clinton camp is also working to shore up its support among superdelegates. News reports in recent days have indicated that some African-American superdelegates are rethinking their support for her, given the strong support for Obama among their constituents. But Wolfson wrote off those concerns Sunday, telling reporters, "I think that all Democrats have a difficult choice in this election. We have two strong candidates with broad appeal. We feel very good about our support in the African-American community and we are quite confident that our superdelegate support is holding firm." While divided over which candidate to support, Democrats are largely agreed that the battle over delegates needs to be resolved without a sense that superdelegates -- which include Democratic lawmakers, governors, and other VIPs -- are making a decision that opposes what voters want. "There has to be some agreement between the Clinton and Obama campaigns as to how to handle it," New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a prominent supporter of her campaign, said Sunday. "We need to win in November and if one side tries to shove down the throats of the other side any rule, so that that camp today or all of her or his supporters walk away upset, we will lose." And that's not the only potential looming battle. There's also the matter of seating delegates from Michigan and Florida. The Democratic Party penalized those two states for moving their primaries early, and determined their delegates would not be seated at the convention, where the nominee is decided. Both states voted overwhelmingly for Clinton -- though in Michigan, her name was the only one on the ballot. In Florida, voters turned out in record numbers despite the party's decision.

If the party sticks to its plan, Democratic voters in those two key swing states may be turned off and be less likely to turn out in November.