The Sunday papers – The fat lady sings.

Ok, ok, why don’t I wait until Wednesday morning and then write an obituary on a campaign? The problem is, I can’t. The swan songs on the Clinton campaign have made the English sunday papers and this, after all, is a sunday paper round-up.
After their mudslinging feast during the week The Times publishes a long and detailed account of Barack Obama’s plans for a “government of talents”. Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar both Republicans may well play a role in Barack Obama’s budding plans for what was to come if he won the nomination:

Asked about his choice of cabinet last week, Obama told The Sunday Times: “Chuck Hagel is a great friend of mine and I respect him very much,” although he was wary of appearing as though he was already choosing the White House curtains.

When it comes to the Clintons, The Times skips a generation and asks: As Hillary’s presidential bid falters, are the Clintons turning to their daughter Chelsea to continue the White House dynasty? In the article the authors are pulling out the stops to show you that Chelsea is a worthy member of the Clinton dynasty, down to the money making for a hedge fund and the “career” of her boyfriends’s parents.

[…]Chelsea is currently linked romantically to Marc Mezvinsky, a wealthy Goldman Sachs banker whose parents were both elected to Congress, only to become immersed in scandal. Mezvinsky’s father is in jail after pleading guilty to fraud.

When it comes to pulling out the stops, nobody beats The Independent today. In two vitriolic comments they make it abundantly clear, that they are so over Hillary. Geoffrey Wheatcroft lashes out at her fraudulence:

At last the Clinton bubble has burst. Her sheer fraudulence has finally registered while the Democratic party, in the words of the columnist Michael Kinsley, has “turned on Bill Clinton with the ferocity of 16 years of pent-up resentments”.

Matthew Norman won’t shed a tear for her if he can help it, he leaves that to her and gleefully elaborates on what will happen if Hillary Clinton loses Texas and needs a scapegoat:

This is the state Bill himself said she must win to stay in the race, and God have mercy on him if she doesn’t because Hillary will be needing a scapegoat, and there’s only one winning candidate for that post. She might have to sew them back on first, but among the multiple personalities she’s unveiled of late there must be room for a seamstress.

The Telegraph is less vitriolic, but they, too, see an unpleasant task ahead for Bill Clinton:

The younger aides believe only Mr Clinton has the influence to convince her the game is up, since many of her most senior staff are in a state of “denial” about her prospects.

The Guardian is more guarded, but they too suspect, that the curtain may fall for the Clintons.

But the facts on the ground remain the same. It has finally come down to this: on Tuesday, Clinton needs to win Texas and Ohio. Anything less could force her from the race and spell the end of the Clinton dynasty. The revered Clinton brand, once so confident of a second act, is now desperately fighting to stop the curtain coming down early.

Even their turn to the nastier side of campaigning may not help.

Her brutal new attack ad in Texas is simply the latest line in a series of nasty volleys at Obama. But it does set a new standard for naked aggression.

The Guardian expects she could even ignore a loss of one of the states and go on with her campaign, but this is not a nice picture.

Of course there have been other things going on, but I will give you those in another post in a round-up dedicated to the world outside of campaigning later.