Heilemann, Like Noonan, Suggests That Clinton Camp May Be Fracturing

On today's Meet The Press, Peggy Noonan got ears burning when she suggested that there was some matter of dissension in the ranks of the Clinton campaign, saying that Clinton is "surrounded by people who would adore the chance to be for Obama." She added, mysteriously, "One of her top aides, who kind of privately makes it clear that he knows that he himself is an insurgent character and that it would be wonderful to be a part of Obama's insurgency but that he is backing Ms. Clinton."

Noonan otherwise made her animus for the Clinton's fairly readily apparent, which was just one of the factors that made me think she was worth dismissing. Others included the fact that last week, Clinton's surrogates weren't working the Reverend Wright angle particularly hard - Charles Schumer and Nita Lowey both backed off of hammering Obama on his association with Wright. Additionally, Clinton's position in the race for the nomination - while obviously hampered by the math - is nevertheless very strong where perceptions are concerned: she's had a pretty good couple of weeks (outside of perhaps the whole Bosnia matter) and is well-poised for a win in Pennsylvania, which is sure to give her some momentum. Additionally, and perhaps critically, the superdelegate flood to Obama has, in the past fortnight, subsided.

On Chris Matthews' show, panelists Norah O'Donnell, Clarence Page, and Elisabeth Bumiller all basically agreed that Clinton was nowhere near the point where she'd be thinking about leaving the race. But there was one outlier: New York Magazine's John Heilemann, who echoed some of the things Noonan would say on Meet The Press:

HEILEMANN: I think that one thing that's happening internally is that some of her top people are starting to say to her, "We won't stick with you. We won't keep working for this campaign if it's going to destroy Barack Obama." She's starting to hear that from her people and she's starting to kind of see it.

MATTHEWS: How do you know that?

HEILEMANN: [archly] How do I know that? Reporting.

The one thing I'd caution is that if you look back, rumors of internal dissension seems to always precede Clinton's momentum-swinging victories. Everyone was supposed to be getting fired in New Hampshire, but Clinton's win forced the press to table their obituaries. And the week before her Ohio win was fraught with Mark Penn-bashing from within the campaign.

Comments

[ched]

Question: When is someone going to ask Hillary why she lied about what happened while visiting Bosnia during her husband's administration.

For those not familiar with this story (which would not be surprising, given the near TOTAL lack of coverage of this outrageous tale), Hillary stated during a speech last week that she was under sniper fire while disembarking from a flight to Bosnia, and even went as far as claiming that she personally saved a little girl from fire. Only prblem was, IT NEVER HAPPENED.

It's not like she mixed the incident up with another; it's not like it's been so long ago that maybe she forgot. Rather, she has NEVER been in any serious danger while abroad, and she recounted the tale more truthfully (but still exaggerating the risks) just a few weeks ago, by saying that there had been reports of fighting in the area when she landed.

So how to explain such a wild-eyed, demonstrably false story? Good question. It's almost as if she thinks we can't see her (we can, and we're wondering WTF she is thinking), or that there's no record of what happened there (there are scores of witnesses who contradict her statement).

Hillary Clinton may be losing it, but the press is AWOL on this story.

[KQuark]

You are right the press has been AWOL on all the Clinton lies, NAFTA, SCHIP, Northern Ireland, Bosnia and African visit. These are only the recent lies but any other candidate would have been thrown under the bus telling so many lies during a campaign, but Hillary is a Clinton and lies are expected. The MSM only reports things that are not expected so when McCain has 4 gaffes in one week and Bush cannot form a complete sentence in a debate that is expected so the press does not make a big deal out of them. At least the last lie was caught on video so it will have some legs. The reason Wright was such a big deal in the first place was because it was on video. If it was just a printed transcript or even only audio it would have not been that big of a deal. But welcome to the era of YouTube and cable TV.

The questions existentialist should ask themselves now is if a tree falls in the forest and it's not on YouTube did it really happen?

[Ginko]

Ched, before you go spouting off about Bosnia, you should learn your facts. I can't believe you take your facts from Sinbad, I mean get a grip. Go read what the military experts who were THERE tell it. Rice, who is the one saying her story isn't true, works for OBAMA. You Obamabots will swallow anything! She did ALL she said in Kosovo and MORE. Just ask any Albanian. They adore her for all she did to assist them. Her experience is vast, what a shame you can't acknowledge it. Young people always devalue experience, because they don't have any.

[KQuark]

The fact is her in a video beside Chelsea talking to a little girl in a greeting ceremony she said never happened because they arrived under sniper fire. Hillary is a pathological liar get use to it.

[peascott]

Rice, who is the one saying her story isn't true, works for OBAMA

I think Rice worked for the Clintons during that period. Sounds like she should know

[shengirl]

There's video. She was accepting flowers from a little girl on the tarmac. Chelsea, 16 years old at the time, was at her side. How dangerous could it be?

[JonStewart4President]

So maybe this is just part of a narrative put out by the Clinton campaign so that Hillary can once again be seen as some "Comeback kid!"? I could see it. But then I think that campaign and the candidate are coming to define Machivellian. Which is a shame, because I liked her so much before she and her campaign started this horrible kitchen sink strategy. Oddly enough, and seemingly this is increasing unusual in America now, but I actually believe in making my decisions based on the issues, not the visual of who someone's pastor may or may not be or whether I would want to have a beer with someone.

[RobtBrock]

Good to see that Peggy Noonan is still trailer-trash.

[justwaitandsee]

I don't know what you are talking about....I like Peggy Noonan a true feminist not someone who needs her husband to do her dirty work....

[Kurukulla]

How stupid are you? Feminist are just women who are pissed off at men because they didn't get everything they wanted growing up, and some guy they dated treated them like s**t, so they have to take it out on all of us men.

[bbpenney]

I have to say -- up until today whenever Peggy noonan has been on tv I find myself screaming at it. But today she made perfect sense and was spot on. I give her credit -- not she may be saying things in favor of obama because she hates the Clintons -- but you know what i am getting to that point myself.

[BigSid]

HAPPY EASTER HUFFINGTON POST BLOGGERS! I HAVE A FUN LITTLE GAME FOR YOU SO READ ON...


Anyone out there asking Hillary to (or hoping she will) drop out should take a minute and look at how foolish it sounds to ask someone to drop out of a race that she is just as capable of winning as her competitor is.


Of course, some people feel she has no chance of winning. I will admit she's far behind right now, but I want readers to note two simple facts:


1) Either candidate will need Super Delegates to reach the total of 2,024 needed to clinch the nomination. It really doesn't matter who has a lead at any particular time, it's whoever ends with 2,024.


2) Hillary could win all the remaining contest. For those who simply wanna reply "no way" please go post somewhere else, because it's just as possible as Obama's 11 straight winning streak. This would be a huge game changer.


HERE"S THE FUN PART:


Ask yourself this question: WHAT GREATNESS HAVE I COME CLOSE TO ACHIEVING IN LIFE, AND THEN QUIT JUST BECAUSE OTHERS SAID I SHOULD?


People fall into one of three categories when answering this question:


1. Some people have never even come close to achieving greatness, so they have no way of comprehending how profoundly foolish it would be for Hillary to drop out on the verge of greatness. These people are: THE UNINFORMED


2. Others have come close to achieving greatness and quit just short of it. If you're one of these people, then I know you're regretting the decision every day of your life. These people are: REAL LOSERS


3. Others, the few I admire, have achieved greatness and didn't allow quitting to be an option. This is how life is meant to be lived. These people are: ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE


Decide what kind of person you are before saying Hillary should quit. Are you a one of THE UNINFORMED, a REAL LOSER, or one of few ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE.


I challenge anyone to give a real reason why Hillary should drop out. Give as many details as possible and we'll all rate you on whether we thing you're simply one of THE UNIFORMED,a REAL LOSER, or one of the few ENLIGHTENED PEOPLE.


Please accept the challenge by sharing with us why you think she should drop out. Let's have some fun with it.

[KQuark]

She is tearing apart the Democratic party and she is a pathological liar, with no principles or integrity and worse thinks the politics of personal destruction is "the fun part".

[KQuark]

Add to what I said her only strategy since losing 11 contests in a row is to do as much damage as she can to Obama and the Democratic Party to help Obama lose the general. Then she can ride on her white horse in 2012 and save the Democratic Party by showing Democrats the big mistake they made by nominating Obama. If you think she is above such a strategy you have not been paying attention to the history of the Clintons. That's what she did to get Bill elected for the second time after he lost his first reelection bid as governor of Arkansas.

[BikerJim]

The amazing thing that I cannot figure out is the relationship between the importance of the MI and FLA contest and the role of the superdelegates. Hillary on one hand says that we cannot disenfranchise the voice of all of those voters in MI and FLA. I do agree with that (granted I don't think they should be given a free pass on breaking the rules) but then on the other hand, Hillary says that the superdelegates should forget the voice of the people and give her the nomination, despite the fact that he will have won more states, and more elected delegates and in all prob. gotten a larger popular vote.

So why should the Superdelegates ignore the will of the people and give her the nomination, but the party should not ignore the will of the people in FLA and MI ???? it seems like a contradiction to me....

[Kurukulla]

She is a conniving as they come. You can not trust a woman who is that hungry for power. They will say whatever they can to get what ever they want, and then stab you in the back when you are not looking.

[ched]

Sorry, Joey, the press has been willing to play along with Hill's game of pretend, since it makes for good tv and they're making a bunch of money pushing the allegedly close race. Slowly but surely, though, the press is starting to realize that between the math and the method necessary for Hill to win, it just ain't gonna happen.

They'll give her a few more weeks, till say, Pennsylvania, but after that, and especially after NC and IN, the rats are going to start jumping ship in droves, fearful of looking foolish after it becomes apparent to all that it just ain't gonna happen.

I guess the good news for your hero is that she'll be the last one to admit that it's over. What you call enlightened and heroic, however, is going to look just pathetic to the rest of us.

[HeironymousJosch]

BigSid, many here would flame you for your post but I like your optimism. I'm also an optimist, it's a big reason I've decided to back Obama. Despite the scant chance of actual change in Washington, I've invested Hope that Sen. Obama can bring it. At the same time I'm realistic. I know that it should be taken with a grain of salt that Obama is a politician and a damn good one at that but in all I've heard or read about him, he's stood by his word. I'm am going to answer your argument and ask that you maintain your optimism but not offer it exclusively to one candidate. 1) It is true that either candidate would need superdelegates to achieve the necessary 2025 but is common practical knowledge that those delegates will follow the will of the people. Sen. Clinton, quite simply, will need to catch Obama in either pledged delegates, popular vote or both. That is a daunting task. 2) Yes, Sen. Clinton could win all remaining contests but she would need to win (roughly 58%) of all remaining votes to catch Obama in the popular vote and an even more daunting 65% to catch him in pledged delegates. As Ben Smith points out, a Clinton adviser assessed a 10% likelihood of her winning the nomination. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9147.html So, no she's not "just as capable of winning" as you assert. At this point, in realistic political terms, Sen. Obama is about 9 times more likely to win the nomination. And I agree with you, we should admire those that achieve greatness but we should also ask, "At what cost?"

[BigSid]

FINALLY AN ENLIGHTENED PERSON ON HUFFINGTON POST


Respectfully I repsond to your points...


1) The common knowledge that Super Delegates will follow the will of the people is, I beleive, better called "common desire". The Supers are under no obligation/requirement to follow the will of people. Yes, historically it would appear they go that way, but this is an unprecedented race we have here.


Furthermore, the will of the people will need to be measured. How do we do that...via pledged delegates...via popular vote? Remember how many people were dismayed by the electoral college trumping popular vote in 2000?


What bout Nancy Pelosi (her presumed support of Obama aside) when you consider that her congressional district was won by Obama, but her state by Clinton and who knows who will win the popular vote. Pelosi technically represents her congressional district so maybe she will use that as her measure.


What about Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry (and Gov. Deval Patrick -- a sometime Obama speechwriter), they all technically represent the people of Massachusetts (a state Clinton won), but does anyone expect them to support the will of their constituents -- they haven't thus far.


Of course, they all may fall back on delegate lead as their yardstick -- Obama supporters better hope that the delegate lead never changes. I'm not delusional enough to predict that it will -- but it could.


2) If Clinton were to win all the remaining races, even by margins as slim as 55% to 45% I think this would be a game changer. May not change the popular vote or delegate leads Obama has, but it would be a strong signal that something's not right with the Obama campaign.


I think she could even win all but Oregon and it would be a game changer. If Hillary were to win the next 10 races, some major trend changes would be evident that would warrant serious reconsideration by the Supers


FINALLY...


As far as odds go...I like the fact that Hillary has as much a chance of winning that the New York Giants had of winning the Super Bowl at the start of the post-season this year. When you put it that way, a 10% chance of winning sounds a lot more inspiring.


Happy Easter and thanks for the ENLIGHTENED conversation -- they're hard to come by here at The Huffington Post. Reply if you have more thoughts to share.

[joeythetrollslayer]

What people forget here, is that pledged delegates and superdelegates can basically vote for whomever they want, and switch at the last minute. Pledged delegates sign that they are going to vote the way their electorate voted, but they aren't legally bound to any candidate-it would just be unusual to vote differently-not impossible. Superdelegates are all up for grabs. In this light, nobody is ahead of anyone else, and the voters, primaries, are just a "helpful guide", that's all-going against their will would create a public relations problem. The public voter is just a small piece of the puzzle. So the primaries + popular vote + momentum + insider strongarming + outsider meddling + electability of candidate = who gets the nomination. Obama and Clinton could be duking it out even after the convention in Aug. (My thought is that if this is the case, neither will be nominated, and someone else will have to run-a compromise that both Hillary and Obama supporters could vote for with one or the other as VP). That's the bottom line.

[KQuark]

You are joking right?

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

Nice guy Bill Richardson is absolutely right about the trained seals surrounding Hillary.

He just is too discrete to lay the blame on the couple that hired them.

Don'tcha just love it when a real foreign policy expert tells you that he'd rather have Barack Obama answer that three o'clock in the morning phone call than Hillary?

Hillary's "Apres moi le deluge" schtick is so false on so many levels.

After her, let's hope for a flood of truth.

What the Clintons are doing now is grinding into dust whatever remains of their legacy.

Viva Bill Richardson! Buen hecho hombre!

[jorjan]

There are too many Republicans on here masquerading as liberals. Good work idiots and hope you enjoy having 100 more years of war.

[Rendon76]

Have you ever tried to post a "conservative" forum? You'll get banned on the first post. I swear to god I haven't lasted most than 1 post on conservative forums. Reason is like krytonite to them.

[MadeinAmericaProud]

Ok lets get busy making babies.

We need those young mother to make 6 each. OK 10 EACH, DID SAY 100 YEARS.

McCain also said up to a 1000 years being baited by the reporter. When you have an extablished
title as marwick, OK young mother make that 20 each new babies.

Here come the draft.

[lornejl]

The Commandant is back, good luck getting your posts through, over......and....out.

[Kurukulla]

No problem here, maybe they just don't like you because you suck.

[LeoMarvin]

Do you know something, or are you just saying that fewer of your comments have been getting through? Because I have noticed that myself the last few days. When it happens I reflexively assume it's an anti-Barack moderator, but to be fair, I probably wouldn't notice it if pro-Hillary comments were getting a heavier hand too.

There was that brief perestroika with Chrissy Brodigan and the Community Blog and all, but then it was like Uncle Joe returned to the Kremlin from his Black Sea dacha and the purges began. Chrissie gone, her profile scrubbed, the Community Blog gone.... So who knows?

[kmdippenger]

"Connecticut newspaper apologizes for Liebermann endorsement of "06" because he's being seen all over the place with McCain...the Clinton's praise McCain as "a great patriot , a man who could effectively run this country" etc etc...when will the media apologize for endorsing Hillary Clinton?

[Ginko]

someone is making stuff up now, she NEVER said he was a man who could effectively run this country, she said he was a great patriot which he is and said he had 35 years of experience.

[kmdippenger]

I beieve there was this line...
At a press conference on Monday in Ohio, Clinton was defending her “3 a.m.” ad, and told reporters, “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”
bad enough in my opinion

[indie17]

You say, "Additionally, Clinton's position in the race for the nomination - while obviously hampered by the math - is nevertheless very strong where perceptions are concerned..."

Yes, and that 'perception' has been created by the MSM on behalf of Clinton. The 'math' -- yes the truth of the situation -- has shown that Hillary should have left the race before March.

[Ginko]

the truth? what are you talking about? There is no truth yet. It is all guessing and postulating by media talking heads. All they do is guess the outcome, usually they are WRONG if you notice.
The delegates, even pledged delegates can change their minds, nothing is set in stone. It isn't a score on a gameboard.
Estimates, guesses and predictions ONLY.
Hillary will sweep Penn. and go on to win in SC and Indiana, that's my guess.

[Thurber]

You guessed wrong, SC happened a long time ago and Hillary got blown out of the water.

[Catspaw]

George Bush is sad and pathetic, among a lot of other things. Really, he is. Read "Bush on The Couch, for a start, and go on from there if you're really feeling sadistic.

[lornejl]

You have to read a book to know dumbya is bat shit insane ?

[falcao]

I am so ****ing sick and tired of hearing about Hillary Clinton and her dreams, plans, and maneuvers. Get this puppy off the stage and let the games begin.

Clinton seems to have no self-awareness. Certainly, no sense of what the country really needs at this moment and how she is standing in the way.

She's the person who opts to wear a huge damn hat to the theater. If you sit behind her you're screwed. She won't take the thing off because it pleases her to display her wares. Why bother trying to see what's happening on stage, when you can admire her magnificence?

And all this yammering about the horse race. The DNC is playing with fire. I supported the Clintons back in the day. Now I just want both of them to go away ... and take their trashy strategies with them.

To dick around with the great national wound of race for political gain I find unforgivable.

[Ginko]

so what does the country really need falcao?

[AZDemocrat500]

The Huffington Post is nothing more than a sounding board for Obama supporters. It is like FOX news talking to all those conservatives, day after day, with the same message. You are not changing anyone's mind, just reinforcing like minded people with the same beliefs.

[Cougarkj]

or we could just ignore all of Clinton's lies, misstatements, and catty attacks and suppose that all is well in Hillaryland. Should she get to blatantly lie about NAFTA, Canada, Bosnia, Africa, etc. without anyone calling her out? The headlines should be bold for BOGUS BOSNIA TRIP BOTCHED BY BILLARY AGAIN!!!!! Instead, oops It's Easter weekend so I guess we'll just keep beating the Wright horse to death....an then some.

[cowman]

Or could it be, to paraphrase Stephen Colbert, that reality has an Obama bias?

[MadeinAmericaProud]

silly season

[Tumult]

The discussion of ideas is never a bad thing, especially if it is informative or fills in the gaps. If a post causes people to think, or to go out and look up information it has done its job And every now and then I see something that makes me feel better about the Clintons. At this point I really hate the Clintons, I had a bad opinion of the Clinton Administration, and I do not like Bill's dealings since then. But the way the Clinton Campaign has been run is why I really cannot stand Clinton. Really I would love to feel that either choice for the presidency would be a win for the democrats, so I would love to be convinced.

[zreeb]

Obama >= Jesus

[Ginko]

LOL zreeb

[MadeinAmericaProud]

mind control

opening up putting thoughts on paper

letting everyone know the truth.

[Kurukulla]

What are you? A crybaby girl or something?

[jsarets]

One of the most overlooked challenges facing the Democratic Party is that, try as we might, we can't have a fair race now that the Republican race is over. Without any obligation to do right on their candidate of choice, Republicans have nothing preventing them, and much to gain, from meddling in the Democratic race. And on the web, I might add, it's sometimes tough to tell the meddling Republicans from the staunch Clinton supporters. All we know is that they all enjoy "toast" metaphors.

So, while I totally grok the "letting all the states make their voices heard" idealism, it's not a fair race once the other party has a presumptive nominee. Tomorrow is the registration deadline for PA Republicans that want to vote for Clinton and help keep this horse race alive in the conventional wisdom. They've had nearly three weeks since Texas/Ohio to ponder the option of meddling with the Dems instead of casting a meaningless vote for McCain.

[booksnmore4you]

Precisely!

[Tumult]

While I may discount what Noonan said, and a Clinton animus may exist. I did not see them discussing anything about potential voter fraud skewing the popular vote in Clinton's favor. Since they did discuss popular vote I think it is a real concern. We have had amplification of non-issues in the press and no comment on important issues. The Republicans complain of a liberal bias in the press, and Clinton complains of an Obama bias. But as Stephen Colbert said "Reality has a liberal bias", and unfortunately for the Clintons (Obama having won more states, more popular vote, and more delegates) reallity has an Obama bias. The press failing to discuss reality, promoting misinformation, out of context information, or in some cases outright lies, while at the same trime failing to report on important information, makes them complicit in advancing the Republican agenda, or the Clinton agenda. The press is already complicit for Iraq and the economy, now its working on the election.