Hangover?

The media narrative today was that Obama's delegate lead cannot be overcome--and this was before an Obama campaign spokesperson said so. Can I believe this? I'm too math challenged to dispute the figurers, and they seem to agree: it will take huge wins in Texas, Ohio and PA for Hillary to come close to catching up in numbers.

Why isn't that comforting? Because of the thing I do feel a little more comfortable about commenting on, which is the mediageist, and every year it gets more and more like the hysteria of crowds. It's so loud that I can't hear if what they're saying makes sense. And so I know two things. First, the narrative can change on a dime, because that's how stories go. The rise has to be followed by the fall or people stop paying attention. (Sure enough, Huffington Post Wednesday night is headlining Hillary's cry of defiance in Texas, and the possibility that John Edwards may endorse her.) While three weeks seems like an eternity with all this gabble going on, the media needs drama to keep viewership/readership alive. So I suspect Texas and Ohio are going to count, and if Clinton pulls out wins of more than a few points in both, then the narrative becomes completely different. And that we're even talking about Texas and Ohio now, before Wisconsin and Hawaii next week, etc., is advantage Clinton. At least until next Tuesday night, if Obama wins Wisconsin in anything like the fashion he won Virginia and Maryland.

So is there much to worry about? In addition to the Texan politicians I referenced yesterday, other commentators/analysts have pointed out the same facts as Carolyn Lockhead does most concisely in the San Francisco Chronicle blog:

But Texas is a weird hybrid of primary and caucus; Obama has obliterated Clinton in caucuses, which rely on ground organization and voter enthusiasm.
Clinton is also banking on Texas's large Latino population. But unlike California, which is only 6 percent black, Texas has a large African American population that votes in much larger numbers than Latinos. Because delegates are distributed based on past turnout, heavily African American districts have more delegates than Latino districts. That gives Obama a much stronger edge in Texas than has been widely believed.

However, an Obama supporter, Al G. at the Field warns that Clinton is hitting all the right cultural notes in her appeal to Latino voters, and that Obama needs to spend time in those communities. The opinion that Hillary made a perhaps fatal mistake by going to Texas last night instead of to Wisconsin--I think it was E.J. Dionne on Keith who said that--may turn out to be wrong if getting a head start on personal campaigning in Texas becomes key to Hillary's primary numbers there.

Still, it seems less likely that Clinton can win big in Texas, if at all. Nobody is talking very specifically about Ohio yet. And the Obama campaign is getting more praise for its strategy and operations, as from the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign manager who endorsed Obama today (you heard it here last night.) Another below the radar endorsement that could become important was by Anibal Acevedo, the Governor of Puerto Rico. Thought to be Hillary country, Puerto Rico has 63 delegates and a winner take all primary in June: the last contest before the Dem convention in August. If Hillary hits a few home runs in March and April, it could become important.

But as for the vaunted super-delegate problem, it seems to have receded in a tide of "they'll follow the pledged delegates" or at least hold off committing until the convention. A few have endorsed since Super Tuesday--I think someone said it was 9-2 in favor of Obama. And there's this observation that (at last!) has the ring of truth to me, from "unaligned" Democratic strategist Jim Duffy:

I would make the assumption that the ... superdelegates she has now are the Clintons' loyal base. A superdelegate who is uncommitted today is clearly going to wait and see how this plays out. She's at her zenith now," Duffy said. "Whatever political capital or IOUs that exist, she's already collected."

The story also says that her super-delegates aren't necessarily all that firm--the tenor of the story is that the Clintons are more feared than loved. Which also means however that if she ever again looks like she could pull this out, they'll go back to being sheep.

As for John Edwards, he'd be an idiot to endorse Hillary now. If he wasn't "torn," if he really believed strongly in her candidacy, then it might be worth the likelihood that he's coming out late backing a loser. He's a natural for a place in an Obama administration (his wife Elizabeth--everybody's favorite Edwards--is said to be for Obama), so he'd probably be deep sixing that option. Hillary has probably promised him something, though. (Al G. found this quote buried in an AP dispatch--that when Bill Richardson refused to endorse Hillary, Bill Clinton exclaimed, "What? Isn't two cabinet posts enough?", referring to his past appointments presumably.)

Well, back from the ozone layer, Obama gave a speech today going into detail about his economic program, but placing policy proposals within a sound context. It's responsive and creative in its mixture of big programs and fairly simple and cheap ones that can make a big differences. (He mentions John Edwards in the speech, by the way. If Edwards remains neutral or endorses Hillary, I'll bet he still will give Edwards credit. Do you really think Hillary would?)

And speaking of the world of today, that unspeakable FISA bill re-authorizing Bushites spying on anyone ,with immunity for the telecom companies that do it, passed the Senate with John McCain's aye. Barack Obama was there to vote no. Hillary Clinton, who was reputedly in the DC area (though I think her campaign is saying she was in or on her way to Texas), didn't vote at all. The appearance of being tough on terrorists as well as presumably the power of telecom lobbyists were, one might suspect, powerful influences. Because the chance of that not coming up at the next debate is quite slim, don't you think?