The Wall Street Journal reports that HUD Sec. Alphonso Jackson is expected to announce his resignation at a 10 a.m. press conference today. Jackson has served as head of the department since 2004.

While the exact reasons for Jackson's departure were not known by the WSJ, the paper reports that Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to Bush earlier this month "urging him to request Mr. Jackson's resignation, arguing that accusations of wrongdoing had made him ineffective."

While Jackson's clashes with Democrats in Congress have not helped Bush solve the current mortgage crisis, it's not clear that his leaving will help either.

Political analysts have been scaling down Hillary Clinton's chances of victory. Many have taken to offering up numerical odds of her success. A source for the Politico affiliated with the Clinton campaign pegs it at 10%. David Brooks puts it at 5%. The InTrade market has it higher - at about 20%. Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei do not offer a number of their own, but they claim she has "virtually no chance of winning."

I agree that Clinton is more likely to lose than win. I also do not necessarily disagree with these low estimates. However, I disagree with the way these estimates are occasionally presented. There is sometimes an implication that these are precise predictions - when in fact a prediction like this must be very imprecise. This is why I was so vague in offering my own estimate last week.

(more...)

July 1: The date Howard Dean said he hopes the superdelegates can pick a nominee.

"Senator Obama enjoys talking about a new brand of politics, but his intentional political distortions attacking John McCain's record are nothing but old-style politics of the worst sort." - McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds on Obama's comments at the Bob Casey rally today.

DNC's Dean: McCain a "blatant opportunist." RNC's response: Dean should apologize.

Pennsylvanians ask: "Where's the love?"

Obama in Pittsburgh on the primary: "A good movie that lasted about half an hour too long."

Jonathan Martin catches McCain in a bit of a Mitt-flip-flop.

Mom would be better than Dad, says Chelsea.

Turns out Obama was a law professor.

Ha: "After confirming the video was a fake, KHQ did not run the story. The New York Times did." No wonder newspaper ad revenue is down.

Obama on "The View":

Jack Higgins, Chicago Sun-Times:

Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle:

Walt Handleman, Newsday:

Steve Kelley, Times-Picayune:

Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer:

Dana Summers, Orlando Sentinel:

Seems the Vermont senator found his earlier comments a bit too harsh. From Halperin:

Any clear-eyed appraisal of the campaign at this stage adds up to two conclusions:

The bottom line is that, first, Senator Obama continues to hold a lead that appears to be insurmountable, and recent indications are that more and more unpledged delegates have begun to add their support to his column.

And second, John McCain, who has been making one mistake after another, is getting a free ride on those gaffes, because the Democratic candidates have to focus not on him but on each other.

Senator Casey's endorsement of Senator Obama in Pennsylvania is the latest sign of how the race is going.

A Democratic victory in November is important to the future and to the change in course that the American people want and deserve. The last thing the American people need is for Senator McCain to continue a third term for President Bush.

Senator Clinton has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to. As far as the delegate count and the interests of a Democratic victory in November go, there is not a very good reason for drawing this out. But as I have said before, that is a decision that only she can make.

Senator Clinton has begun a tremendous career in the Senate, and she has a bright future ahead of her. She faces difficult decisions ahead, and I wish her the best.

In other words, says Leahy, stay in, but you're going to lose.

Obama's new PA ad:

To which the Clinton campaign responds:

A new ad by Sen. Obama running in Pennsylvania falsely claims that Sen. Obama does not accept money from the oil industry. In the ad, Sen. Obama says, "I'm Barack Obama and I don't take money from oil companies or lobbyists and I won't let them block change anymore."

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. Obama has received over $160,000 from the oil and gas companies. Two major bundlers for his campaign -- George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar – are oil company CEOs. Sen. Obama has accepted money from Exxon, Shell, BP, Chevron and just about every other major oil company. Just last month, Sen. Obama accepted another $8,400 from ExxonMobil, $12,370 from Chevron and $6,500 from British Petroleum.

In 2005, Sen. Obama voted for the Dick Cheney energy bill, which was written in secret with the oil industry. Hillary Clinton opposed Cheney's energy bill, has a plan to eliminate oil industry tax breaks, and would require oil companies to contribute to a $50 billion strategic energy fund to jumpstart research and investment in clean energy technologies.

The economy has officially emerged as the top issue of the campaigns, the LA Times reports, with three major speeches this week--and major jabbing among the candidates:

The deteriorating economy took center stage in the presidential election Thursday as Democrat Barack Obama called for tighter regulation of financial markets and rival Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed more retraining for displaced workers, creating a sharp contrast with Republican John McCain over how much the government should intervene.

Obama called Thursday for an overhaul of the nation's regulatory system, immediate relief for homeowners caught in the sub-prime mortgage crisis and a $30-billion economic stimulus package. Clinton, who had proposed a $30-billion fund to help prevent foreclosures a week ago, offered a new proposal to spend $12.5 billion on job-training programs.

The Washington Post reports further on the minor slugfest, noting that "on Tuesday, McCain (Ariz.) said he supports government assistance for Americans facing home foreclosure because of the turmoil in financial markets. But he declined to embrace the kind of government intervention for individuals and institutions favored by Clinton and Obama, arguing that 'it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers.'"

Interestingly, these debates have coincided with week's of unprecedented action on the Fed's behalf. It's worth wondering, amid the debate about the role of government financial regulation, whether the Fed, in a small sense, has handed the candidates a bit of a fait accompli--and, even if that's not the case, their actions will certainly shape the debate going forward.

In which "The Tonya Harding Strategy" officially enters the political lexicon:

TO: Interested Parties

FR: Obama Campaign

RE: Voters and Superdelegates Rejecting Clinton's Tactics

DA: March 28, 2008

Weeks ago, as Senator Obama began to build momentum in the race for the Democratic nomination, the Clinton campaign put into motion their "kitchen sink" strategy--what one Democratic official called the "Tonya Harding" strategy [ABC, 3/25/08]: say and do anything to make Barack Obama an unacceptable candidate and win over the remaining superdelegates. But as new polling and news reports show, voters and superdelegates are soundly rejecting the Clintons' tactics.

The Clintons have made no secret of the fact that they relish negative campaigning. Just before the first votes were cast in this race, Senator Clinton called attacking Senator Obama "the fun part." Earlier this week, during a campaign stop in West Virginia, Bill Clinton signaled that the attacks won't be letting up anytime soon:

"If a politician doesn't wanna get beat up, he shouldn't run for office. If a football player doesn't want to get tackled or want the risk of an occasional clip he shouldn't put the pads on." [MSNBC, 3/2608]

There's just one problem: the only candidate paying a price for Senator Clinton's desperate attacks is Senator Clinton herself.

How are the voters responding to Clinton's tactics?

(more...)

Today, the Wall Street Journal features two hefty columns on Hillary Clinton's Bosnia debacle. Peggy Noonan notes that, well, we should have all seen this coming:

I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.

That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought.

Meanwhile, Kimberley Strassel points out that it's now open season:

...It is no surprise that this week also saw the beginning of a tide of Democrats, many of them one-time Clinton defenders, calling on her to abandon her bid, laying out the reasons for why she cannot win this race, and telling her to let go for the good of the party. Mrs. Clinton, being a Clinton, may well ignore them. But what is clear is that questions about her character and honesty are no longer verboten. If she does stay in, answering them will become the new reality of her campaign.

Don't touch that dial, though--not everyone's tired of Hillary. These latest Pennsylvania poll numbers, for instance, don't look too shabby for Mrs. C.

In an interview with Vermont Public Radio, Sen. Pat Leahy, an Obama supporter called for an end:

There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination. She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that's a decision that only she can make frankly I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate. ...

I am very concerned...John McCain, who has been making one gaffe after another, is getting a free ride on it because Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have to fight with each other. I think that her criticism is hurting him more than anything John McCain has said. I think that's unfortunate.

(ht: Tapper)