More Unsolicited Advice to Obama

I mean, the guy emails me a lot, but I'm not exactly a campaign advisor, paid or unpaid. Good thing, because having called Hillary an unprincipled flesh-eating insect and traitor to her party (and that's when I was trying to be nice) I'd probably have to resign.

But seriously. There's this story that's already giving me hives, saying that Obama is considering making some trips to Europe and elsewhere to help with the foreign policy credentials. I wouldn't advise it. Sure, after the Mississippi primary Tuesday there are six weeks until Pennsylvania votes--plenty of time for a few days of travel. But you don't want to be overseas while Hillary is pointing out your absense in PA. No, you don't want that in PA.

There's a lot of talk about demographics in PA, but that's not the whole story there, especially this year. PA is ready for the message of change--in recent elections, since 04, there's been a marked mood to THROW THE BUMS OUT. If he can tap into that, he can win a lot of votes in some surprising places.

The Obama campaign may want to dial down the importance of PA a bit, but on the other hand, if they can beat Hillary there, it's over. Besides, if he wants to emphasize foreign policy and national security, there are ways to do it without leaving the country. He can pick some prestigious venues for policy addresses, emphasizing Iraq and its impact on the country, and another of his strengths, the danger of nuclear weapons proliferation, how the Bushites have bungled the issue dangerously, and how he will make America safer by addressing this danger. He can talk specifically and at length about his vision of the world, and how he uniquely understands and projects how America must change how we interact with other countries and cultures.

He might even do what Hillary did when she gathered all those generals and admirals around her--get some other people on the stage with him. Right now it looks like he's out there all alone. I agree with some otherwise dubious pundits that he could make better use of surrogates and high profile supporters. Maybe it's a question of getting better media attention to these kinds of events, but at this point I think we need to see who is with him, as well as who is against him.

And as odd as it feels to agree with Tucker Carlson, I think he's right when he says that Obama has to again emphasize his ability to work with people across ideological and party lines, and--incidentally (SUPER-D's) he must emphasize how he's brought so many new people into the party, and how he attracts independents and Republicans.

Some of this worked for him before March 4, and if he got off-message he can come back to this, and if he didn't--if it just wasn't getting through--then maybe it's time to find a different way to approach it and tell it.

But as for something new, this would be the time to give some detailed addresses on his vision of the world. Because Hillary is harping on it, the media will pay attention. If he did this fairly soon, he's still have plenty of time to talk about the economy and health care in PA. (Again, in talking about health care he should again personalize it, and talk about the more open process he would follow to get it done.)

Obama Wins Wyoming---and Texas

Obama won the Wyoming caucuses Saturday with 61% of the vote to Hillary's 38%. He gets 7 delegates, she gets 4, and there's still one to be allocated.

Although it was hard information to find, the count of the Texas caucuses has proceeded to the point that Obama has an insurmountable lead, and he will earn at least 3 more delegates from the combined totals of primary and caucuses--so he has won Texas. In addition to the super-delegates who endorsed him in the past week, Obama picked up an additional 4 delegates (and Hillary lost 4) in the final certification of the primary in California.

So during the week that Hillary scored popular vote victories in three states, she fell further behind in delegates. And there's a primary in Mississippi on Tuesday.

In their latest Machiavellian scenario, both halves of Billary have been talking up the idea of Obama as v.p. on the ticket with Hillary. Apart from the hypocrisy of suggesting a candidate to be a heartbeat from the presidency who she is publicly saying isn't qualified to be president, it's a blatant attempt to steal votes from those who like Obama but are still torn about who to vote for. As for Obama, he told reporters flatly, "you won't see me running for vice-president."

In separate but related news, the so-called "safe" Republican seat in Illinois formerly occupied by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert has gone to a Democrat, Bill Foster. Barack Obama endorsed and cut a campaign commercial for winner Foster. John McCain publicly supporter the loser, and so did the Republican National Committee, to the tune of over a million bucks.

Hillary Surrenders to McBush

Hillary Billary has said several times now that she and John McBush are fit to be commander in chief, but Obama is not. And she says that the national security issue will dominate the general election campaign.

How are these two statements not contradictory, unless she is saying she should be the nominee so she could lose? She's already stipulated that McBush is ready to be commander-in-chief.

This is especially nuts because it neutralizes a strong argument that's already surfacing--without any Democrat even bringing it up--that McBush isn't fit, temperamentally, to have his finger poised over the button--or to be answering the red phone. Who is saying this? People who know him. Republican officials. Military leaders.

It's coming out in this story. It's already come out in this story. And that story appeared on the same day that McBush lost his temper with a reporter asking him a fairly simple question.

Attack dog Clinton, attack wolf Wolfson, should be jumping on this. But they can't. Because Hillary Billary has already given McBush a pass--as far as she's concerned, he's fit to be commander in chief.

This is just another example of Hillary the monster, who will do anything to win. Just not in November.

Hillary is a Monster

Samantha Powers is one of the best minds and hearts of her generation. She won a 2003 Pulitzer Prize for her book, A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide. When I learned she was an advisor to Barack Obama, I was impressed with Obama because of it. She brings an entirely new and needed perspective to how the U.S. engages with the world.

Now she's resigned because she made an exasperated comment to a Scottish reporter, which she quickly withdrew and which a reporter with anything but a gotcha mentality would have let go.

She called Hillary Clinton a "monster," a characterization she withdrew today. And of course the Clinton campaign is monstrously all over her, ready to destroy her and Obama if they can. Howard the Wolf can apparently refer to any criticism as "Ken Starr tactics" and Hillary can mischaracterize Obama's statements and call him unfit for the office of President, her campaign can inject racism at every opportunity and with tardy apology if ever, and that's okay. That's hardball.

(Or it's the definition of what is is. Hotline: Clinton did not address Power's specific comment. When asked how it was different from Communications Dir. Howard Wolfson's statement yesterday that Obama was imitating Ken Starr, she said "one is an adhomiem attack and one is a historical refererence." Which means that it would have been okay if Samantha Power had said Hillary was imitating Hitler, or if she'd said, "Hillary is a Godzilla." Or perhaps "a flesh-eating insect," which would be a biological reference. )

Well, there are a lot of people who agree with the characterization of Hillary as a monster, and she's giving them more reason to feel that way every day.

Why the GOPers Want to Run Against Billary, Part I


Hillary's been vetted, Obama hasn't. Oh, yeah? Let the vetting begin:

1. Why won't Billary release their joint tax returns and names of contributors to the Clinton library? Senator Bill Bradley says it's because there are strings attached. Bradley said this on the PBS New Hour:

" I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed."

That's one reason Bradley said, "I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election." Because all of this is going to be a campaign issue if she is the candidate.

2. Clinton exploiting the poor for campaign donations: A story in the Los Angeles Times:

Dishwashers, waiters and others whose jobs and dilapidated home addresses seem to make them unpromising targets for political fundraisers are pouring $1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury. In April, a single fundraiser in an area long known for its gritty urban poverty yielded a whopping $380,000. When Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) ran for president in 2004, he received $24,000 from Chinatown.

At this point in the presidential campaign cycle, Clinton has raised more money than any candidate in history. Those dishwashers, waiters and street stall hawkers are part of the reason. And Clinton's success in gathering money from Chinatown's least-affluent residents stems from a two-pronged strategy: mutually beneficial alliances with powerful groups, and appeals to the hopes and dreams of people now consigned to the margins.Clinton has enlisted the aid of Chinese neighborhood associations, especially those representing recent immigrants from Fujian province. The organizations, at least one of which is a descendant of Chinatown criminal enterprises that engaged in gambling and human trafficking, exert enormous influence over immigrants. The associations help them with everything from protection against crime to obtaining green cards.

Many of Clinton's Chinatown donors said they had contributed because leaders in neighborhood associations told them to. In some cases, donors said they felt pressure to give.The other piece of the strategy involves holding out hope that, if Clinton becomes president, she will move quickly to reunite families and help illegal residents move toward citizenship. As New York's junior senator, Clinton has expressed support for immigrants and greater family reunification. She is also benefiting from Chinese donors' naive notions of what she could do in the White House.

3. Rezko, did you say? How about this:

Clinton's national co-chair received donations from Rezko. Three of the co-defendants at Rezko trial contributed to Clintons and campaign supporters. Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko.

And we haven't even gotten to NAFTA-gate yet.

Hillary the Traitor

Hillary Billary Clinton is a traitor to the Democratic Party. For several days running she has preferred John McCain as Commander in Chief to Barack Obama. As Rachel Madow said the first time this surfaced, this is something someone says who wants to be McCain's vice president, not what a Democratic candidate says about another.

Some say, including Clinton, that this is fair testing of the party's candidate, and he'd get this or worse from the Republicans. Jonathan Chait, senior editor at The New Republic, writes this:

Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.

And this is happening when Clinton has no way to win enough delegates to get the nomination, and almost no way within the rules to get it either. Chiat sums it up:

Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.

Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost--to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months--uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.

I had assumed I would be voting for the Democrat for President this year. I still will be, if there is one on the ballot. I know I won't be voting for Hillary Clinton.

Hillary's Arrogance

It didn't take long for the Clinton campaign to trash the aura of their popular vote victories Tuesday with huge piles of steaming crap, outrageous charges and utter arrogance.

There's too much of all of these to even recount, but here's the charge put in context not by an Obama partisan but a reporter for Newsday, when Clinton's wolfson likened the Obama campaign's request that Billary make tax returns public (which Obama has done) to an attack by Watergate prosecutor Ken Starr.

That kind of hysteria has become Billary policy. So has this sort of arrogance:

My way or the highway, that's once again what the Clinton campaign is saying to the Democratic Party. Democratic Party chair Howard Dean and the party are trying to find a way to include Florida and Michigan in the process so they can have delegates at the national convention. After the pro-Hillary Florida officials laughed at him last month, this month they're listening. And Michigan is going further than that--it's reported that they are about to announce a statewide caucus.

But contrary to this story which suggests the Obama people aren't interested in these states voting (even though it quotes Obama saying it's up to the party but he supports having these states participate), Hillary herself has royally refused.
In an interview with U.S. News, she says "I would not accept a caucus."

I would not accept? She'll defy a state's decision and that of the chair of her party?

What Billary wants is for the Michigan primary results to count, because her name was the only one on the ballot. She wants the Florida results to count as well, even though the candidates agreed with the party it shouldn't count. This particular option is the very one that Dem chair Howard Dean said is off the table, because you can't change the rules after the game.

Bucks

The big news today was the announcement that the Obama campaign took in a record $55 million in contributions for the month of February, about $20 million more than the Clintons did in Feb., which was their best month.

I contributed my miniscule part of that February take for Obama (among the 90% of donors contributing less than $100), and I contributed more last night, to show support even after the dismaying results on Tuesday. But I find the whole thing increasingly repulsive. All that money for what? It's just more transference of wealth from the many with little to the few with too much. Some of it no doubt goes to small businesses and so on, but way too much of it goes to media giants and consultants. (Although as far as I know the Obama campaign is more modestly paid at the top than the Clinton.) It's disgusting.

It's disgusting to throw money away because the Clintons successfully played on fear and racism, as well as the old politics. And it's only the beginning. Now that Bush has endorsed McCain, he's busy helping him out by warning again that terrorists can strike the U.S. at any time.

Obama has to defend himself against both McCain and Clinton, while focusing on winning Pennsylvania in seven weeks. The Clinton staffers from Ohio and Texas are converging on PA, content to let the next two contests go (which Obama can't do.) They go in knowing what worked in those states, while the Obama folks have to figure out what didn't work. Clinton has all the cards in PA right now. She's back up 14 points in the polls, having won back the white male vote. She's got the support of the two most powerful pols in the state, the governor and mayor of Philadelphia. All the demographics favor her.

Today the Obama campaign gave the impression of sitting on their lead, and picking up super-delegates one by one. They can't do that. I understand they are strategizing for a few days, but they better come up with something new. They do have in their favor that the Clintons invariably overplay their hand--their arrogance gets the best of them very quickly. But nobody can count on that. The Obama campaign has to again start looking like the professionals in the campaign, because the Clinton kitchen sink strategy appears to be working. Contraditions are no longer an issue with them. They are perfectly willing to call on Obama to be positive while slamming him and his campaign for responding to their attacks.

It now appears that one of the issues that hurt Obama in Ohio, the questions about his support of NAFTA, were not only the product of stupidity and political cupidity in Canada, they were orchestrated by a Clinton supporter.

In any case, I'm sure PA is celebrating its windfall. Millions of dollars are going to be spent in the state, although probably not much of it will stay there.

The Day After

As I said over at Dreaming Up Daily, I hardly had time to get deeply depressed last night before I got an email that began:

We may not know the final outcome of today's voting until morning, but the results so far make one thing clear. When the dust settles from today's contests, we will maintain our substantial lead in delegates. And thanks to millions of people standing for change, we will keep adding delegates and capture the Democratic nomination.

It was signed: Barack.

The final tally of Tuesday is not yet complete even on Wednesday night, and probably won't be for days, as delegates are allocated. But as of today it seems Hillary Clinton picked up a net of but 12 delegates out of more than 370 at stake. The Obama campaign projects the final total will be more like 4. In the meantime, Obama picked up 5 more superdelegates Wednesday, including the Mayor of Dayton, Ohio, while Clinton picked up a net of 1. And there is now a second source on the story that surfaced yesterday that some 50 super-delegates are soon to declare for Obama. (I suspect that if it happens, it will be after Saturday's contest in Wyoming.)

Several commentators pointed out that the delegate math still makes it extremely unlikely that Clinton will overtake Obama's lead in delegates. Yet it seems the campaign will go on. However, there were a couple of indications today as to its limits. Several prominent Democrats said it should be resolved before the Convention. And Donna Brazile, who with a single statement quelled the Clinton drive to win with super-delegates while behind in votes, today said "If these attacks are contrasts based on policy differences, there is no need to stop the race or halt the debate. But, if this is more division, more diversion from the issues and more of the same politics of personal destruction, chairman Dean and other should be on standby."

That's going to be difficult for Hillary. She only won after going blatantly negative and sub-rosa racist. Or as Beth Broderick put it: The whining, spitting, savage God awfulness of Hillary's campaign can only be seen as bad intent and that is not good for anyone, not for women, not for democrats and not for the Country. We must turn the page on this kind of politics or risk being thrust into a dark age that will fill us with longing for the simple stupidity of the past eight years.

Advice to Obama

Among the many bad things about losing is that everybody feels they can give you unsolicited advice. Which is just what I'm going to do now.

I'll start by crediting Al G. at the Field with getting into "print" first with this, although I've been thinking this for the past several days, and especially last night: Obama talks about change, about turning the page. He ought to think about changing his stump speech, and turning that page. As Al points out, everybody has heard it, and because Clinton changed hers so much and so often, she got featured in the news more often.

He made some progress in that direction last night, when it was about half new. His emphasis on patriotic themes will play well in PA, and he hit on something that will work for him when he must take on Hillary--he never said Hillary Clinton without saying "and John McCain." They are in fact making the same charges, and it is worth reminding Democrats that Hillary Clinton is saying the same things about a Democrat as the Republican nominee. This also allows him to battle McCain at the same time as he fends off Clinton.

But he isn't going to inspire by saying the same things in the same way. His two-minute TV spot was strong, but old. And therefore, it wasn't so strong.

Al G. makes some other more tactical observations: that the Obama campaign didn't sweat the rural areas as they did before, and that Bill Clinton, under the radar, made countless appearances in rural areas to secure that support. When the history is written, winning the Texas popular vote (however slightly) was probably more Bill than Hillary.

Pennsylvania is going to be a difficult test for Obama. But he doesn't have quite so much ground to make up (he was down only 5% or so in a recent poll, though Hillary's lead is probably going back up in the next poll as a result of Ohio.) And even though he can't count on Independents in the Democrat-only primary, he also doesn't have to contend with the Rush Limbaugh Republican crossover mischief-making that sent votes to Hillary in Texas and Ohio.

I'm also afraid that white working class racism played a part in both states, subtly encouraged by the Clinton campaign. It was particularly damaging in playing to women (because there's a chance they might still vote for a Democrat in the fall) but it can be damaging in the primary when it plays to men (even though they will not vote for Hillary in November--they will prefer a Republican white man over a white woman or a black man.) Somehow this has to be addressed.

On health care: he needs to again place it in the context of why it is "personal" for him. It's personal for him partly because of his mother, while it's personal for Hillary because she screwed it up the first time. And he needs to again emphasize the open process he advocates to create a health care plan that Congress will pass, and the American people will own.

On the economy: he needs a story that tells why the economic plans he has will work because of his ability to bring people together, and why Hillary's ten point programs won't get passed, because she is too divisive. He's said each of these things separately and consecutively, but he needs a story with real people in it that link the two.

On national security: If you deconstruct Hillary's "3 AM" ad, it appeals to the fears of white women for their children (the only people in the ad are white women and white children), and what are they afraid of? Is it really about the experience to make sound decisions in a crisis? Or is it about white mom protecting her children against threatening dark-skinned men? Think about that possibility when crafting a better response to this line of attack. Because if it was purely a "national security" issue, the ad that the Obama campaign issued the same day should have worked.

These are ideas about adjustments, not on the basics of hope versus fear, working together versus winning at all costs. Obama needs to bring attention back to that distinction, but to do so he probably needs to come at it in a new way that let's us hear it again, and he needs to deal with these distractions while explaining more about what he will do--and how--as President.

That's my two cents, as we used to say, though apparently the Mark Penns of the world get substantially more. And others of us don't even clear that much. Who knows? Maybe this is not even worth the pennies that nobody even bothers to pick up off the floor anymore.

Get Ready For Bad Mom

CNN has just called Ohio for Clinton.

As Texas becomes incredibly close, and the symbolism of even a squeaker victory for either side becomes larger (although Obama is racking up big percentages in the big population areas that are just starting to report), the consensus of the pundits is that the race is going on, that Hillary has found that going negative works for her, and there is going to be much more of this through to Pennsylvania in seven weeks.

Seven weeks in which John McCain gets the kinks out of his campaign--which if anyone had been looking in the past two weeks, would have ended his chances before they began--and he looks like the adult.

This couldn't be a worse outcome for the Democrats, or for the country's future. Hillary has apparently tapped into the same fear area of the collective unconscious that GW Bush did so effectively. Only this time instead of Daddy it's Mom. It's the hectoring Mom who tells you that your hopes are false, your dreams are silly, get practical and stop thinking you can change things because the world is brutal and the best you can do is protect yourself.

She's going to do McCain's work for him, while he looks like the inclusive one, and she's going to destroy the future of the Democratic party, all for her own ambition. I have no doubt that this is going to go on, because the Clintons are energized again, they smell blood and they love the limelight. They're fighters all right. They're killing their own party's future, and the country's future, but that's all right with them.

Hopeful in Texas?

Texas they say will be close, although Obama continues to have a big lead before his strongholds are counted. The networks are harping on Hillary fighting on, Chris interviewed his sweetheart Rendell from PA (who says Hillary has to win BOTH Ohio and Texas, though Chris never bothered asking him what he will do if she loses one of them) but there is counterevidence that especially now that McCain is starting his general election campaign, it's time for this to be over in favor of Obama.

Hopeless in Ohio?

Exit polls suggest Ohio Dems voted their fears, and that's enough to energize the Clinton campaign, which is clearly trying to preempt any talk of them getting out by throwing themselves a big party in Ohio and announcing that Bill Clinton will be off to Wyoming to campaign for the next contest Saturday.

So how this day is characterized will largely depend on Texas, and perhaps Rhode Island. That is, whether the media will buy what's clearly going to be the Clinton spin. At the moment, the vote count in Vermont isn't showing the kind of bulge for Obama that would give him that significant delegate jump. But I have no idea of what the count means at this point.

Early returns from Texas show Obama doing very well, but those appear to be early voting returns, and Clinton may have gotten a lot of her votes in the past week or so. So while it's a good sign, it's not definitive or even indicating much except that the Obama organization in Texas did a great job getting their voters to vote early.

The good news in Ohio: the Obama campaign successfully sued to keep Cleveland area polls open another hour. The bad news: it's because of weather that's come through there in the past few hours--sleet, ice, snow, the whole thing. If voting is suppressed in this key area, Obama's chances dip dramatically.

Exit polls in Texas: Hillary held on to 2-1 advantage with Latinos, even in white men, which tends to indicate that this is going to be closer than the first returns indicate, which show Obama with a big bulge.

Top of the hour: McCain wins the GOPer nomination, both Texas and R.I. too close to call.

During Huckabee's concession, NBC calls Rhode Island for Hillary.

The Wait Begins

Ohio polls have closed but networks say it's too close to call. There's at least 90 minutes of palaver before results start coming in from Texas and Rhode Island. If it's too close to call in Ohio now, it's likely to go on for awhile because the Cleveland area's huge vote cache may be the last to report. Because of the weather, polls may stay open there another half hour.

But some of the exit poll numbers Tom Brokaw just talked about from Ohio favor Clinton in terms of issues voting. Chuck Todd outlined the delegate situation in Ohio, and says that depending on where votes come from, Hillary could win the popular vote and come up with a net loss of one delegate.

CNN is showing Hillary ahead by a few percentage points in Ohio, according to exit polls. One theme that is emerging in the TV chatter: Hillary Clinton is shredding Democratic chances to win in November by dividing Democrats with negative attacks, at least some of which may be working.

It doesn't look like Obama won enough white votes in Ohio to win the popular vote there. The black vote is showing as higher than some pollsters figured, but only slightly. On the plus side, Obama is winning white men. That's one of the key demographics in Texas.

12-0

Networks called Vermont for Obama instantly.

Al G.'s projections based on exit polls look good for Obama, but all three remaining states are likely to be close, so it'll be a long night. Big African American turnout could be the key.

The number to watch in Vermont now is whether Obama gets more than 64% of the vote. If he does, that's not only a great sign for the other states, it means he gets an extra delegate in Vermont.

VOTR: Early Signs

Late polls: good for Clinton
early exit poll numbers: very good for Obama
turnout: possibly very good for Obama

Exit poll numbers released so far show voters rank CHANGE over experience, 2 to l and on electability against McCain, Obama wins 52-41 in Ohio and 52-44 in Texas.

The precip in Ohio seems to have remained as rain, but very heavy in places with flooding. Republicans voting in high numbers in Dem primary in both Ohio and Texas, but the winger effort to get GOPers to vote for Clinton to muddy up the Dem race complicates what this might mean.

Some early exit poll numbers show an Obama lead across the board, but we're cautioned that such early numbers often favor Obama. Why? Beats me, just reporting. Or talking to myself, as the case may be.

The Day of the Young

Ever since my generation reached 21 (which was the legal voting age then), the power of youth has been highly touted but in the end not enough. George McGovern got huge crowds of young people in 1972, and lost every state but Massachusetts. The young early Internet adopters were the hope of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004, but they weren't enough. Though young voters came out at a higher percentage for John Kerry in November, not enough of them did.

This year we've seen young voters and young people working for the Obama campaign make a real difference, and really come out in large numbers to vote. That phenomenon will be put to its biggest test on Tuesday.

The only reason that Rhode Island is still considered a possibility for Obama are these numbers: 20,000 newly registered voters, mostly young, and a crowd of 10,000 that came out to hear Obama, one of the largest crowds ever assembled in that state.

Young voters and Obama GOTV workers along with union supporters and a larger than expected outpouring from black communities are the keys for Obama in Ohio. But nowhere are they more important than in Texas.

As the Obama ground game, they are up against the older, more experienced party regulars for Clinton. They are the key to getting Obama voters to the polls, and to expanding the voting base that's necessary for him to win.

Nowhere are young people more important in Texas than in the Latino communities. Several seasoned observers noted weeks ago that an age split was developing, with younger Latinos moving to Obama, but such has not shown up in the polls so far. Yet there are those who believe it has been happening, and is happening right now. In fact, this is one of the key groups that Al G. now sees giving Obama a big victory in Texas.

Al is really sticking his neck out here--nobody else so far is predicting Obama will get 53% of the vote, though he insists that's a conservative estimate. He is in Texas, and sees real movement towards Obama in two key groups: the aforementioned young Latinos, and among white men (who he says are responding to Clinton's 3 a.m. phone call fear mongering ad in exactly the opposite way as her campaign intends.)

White men in East Texas have been considered the group that could swing the results either way in the popular vote. Al makes his case that Obama is winning more white male voters, particularly crossover Independents and Republicans. But an old Texas pol who I saw on TV a couple of weeks ago said flatly that white men in Texas will never vote for Hillary. (The question yet to be answered is, but would they tell pollsters they will?)

But Texas is more than the popular vote. The caucuses in the evening are as least as important, and probably more so. That's where young people have come through for Obama best in previous elections, and they will have to come through this time, big time. A lot of rumors are floating around about planned dirty tricks and voter suppression by the older Clinton people. This will be a big test for those young Obama enthusiasts.

All of this demographic theory is speculation and to some extent conventional wisdom--there is no single group that is likely to make the difference. But this certainly is going to be a test, and an opportunity, for young voters to finally make a very big difference for the future. If Obama wins Texas, it will be a repudiation of Clinton's negative campaigning, and will move Obama much closer to the nomination, before there's any further damage to the Democratic party's chances in November.

Monday Evening Anti-Gloom

No, there's no better news exactly. Even over at The Field, Al G. is now predicting a ten point victory in popular vote for Hillary in Ohio. His projections on Texas will come later, and I'll hold off on my comments on Texas until I see what his numbers look like.

The only whiff of counter-trend I'm getting is from reporters in the field rather than pollsters and pundits: that the youth vote may threaten Hillary's assumed win in Rhode Island and may well be a mighty if unpredictable force in Texas. Hillary's final event in Ohio was badly attended.

The major anti-gloom for Ohio is precisely in today's bad news. I can feel the energy redoubling among the Obama get-out-the-vote operation everywhere. There's also a report from earlier in the week that union canvas of Ohio households was finding a lot more Obama support than Hillary support.

Plus there's real anger developing against Hillary for implying that John McCain is more qualified to be President than is Obama. Rachel Madow, no Obama supporter by any means, said bluntly on Keith that Hillary's statement sounded like someone wanting to be McCain's vice president, not the Democratic nominee. At the moment there are at least 3 reccommended diaries on this subject at Kos.

Hillary's campaign of fear may have gone too far, regardless of how she does in Ohio and Texas tomorrow. With the delegate math against her, this is going to suggest how far she will go to divide the party even though she has little chance of winning the nomination. The consensus seems to be that if she wins Ohio, she'll stay in the race. But any pressure on her to get out is only going to be intensified by this. I expect Bill Richardson to endorse Obama on Wednesday, at the very least.

That statement is also going to energize the Obama troops (it already is.) There isn't going to be an identified Obama voter tomorrow who isn't going to get contacted, driven to the polls through snow and/or rain in Ohio, and ice storms in Rhode Island. They're going to work the neighborhoods in Ohio and Texas from before the polls open until they close. The campaign has already closed 20 point gaps in both big states, and the expected big turnout, the new voters, the early voters and the crossovers make all of this a big question mark. And while today's events did not help Obama, tomorrow's energy and commitment will.

Crossover voters, by the way, is a factor that the media isn't considering: the McCain campaign is off to a bad start, and is in the news at the moment for accepting endorsement from a preacher who calls the Catholic Church the "Great Whore." That could motivate Republicans and Independents to vote in the Democratic primaries tomorrow.

Monday Afternoon Gloom

It's not just the cloud cover. The morning flood of polls contain almost no good news, and suggest that Obama's momentum has been stopped and the Clinton campaign has it. Only one poll suggests that Obama has momentum in Ohio, but is still down several points. The much respected SUSA poll has Clinton up in Ohio by 10.

The news blogs are also filling up with accounts of Obama's "contentious" news conference in Texas about an aide's informal discussion with a Canadian official about trade, and concerning details coming up in the Rezko trial. These are not likely to produce good headlines for voters to wake up to tomorrow. Hillary may be the beneficiary of this timing.

Much hand-wringing and knashing of teeth among Obamaphiles online, because of how Clintonians will spin popular vote victories, how the media will bite on a new story line, and how much longer this will go on, with Hillary gaining traction by being negative.

Almost no one believes she will come out of tomorrow with a significant increase in delegates. Obama is likely to do particularly well in the Texas caucuses. But the Clinton campaign is clearly not in the mood to quit, unless they get devastated by substantial Obama victories. Right now, given the expectations, that could be five points. A good summary of where things realistically stand is here. If Obama wins the popular vote in one of the big states, the consensus is that Clinton will be under a lot of pressure to stop.

The Obamaphiles looking for consolation are trying to remember their anxiety before Wisconsin voted, and some are parsing the polls and questioning whether the assumed African American turnout is too low, especially in Ohio--getting that right has been the single most important factor in accurate polling predictions. SUSA has it pretty low in Ohio, which worked for them in CA but may not tomorrow. The AA vote has been pretty energized since South Carolina.

One theory about the Clinton resurgence in Ohio, if it turns out to exist, is that she was able to neutralize Obama on NAFTA, convincing voters that she was just as intent on changing it, and made a better case on health care, possibly by scaring them with her mantra of Obama's plan leaving millions out. Since MSNBC did so well in the ratings with last week's debate, they've rebroadcast it several times--on Friday and Sunday, for example. The 16 minutes on health care now looks like a lost opportunity for Obama, who spent his time parrying Clinton on her charges about his plan, etc., but missed making two of his strongest points. First, that nobody's plan is going to get passed as it is, but he has a process of opening the discussion, putting it all on C-SPAN. Second, when Hillary insists "this is personal," Obama needs to take that ground away with the statement he makes in several ads about his mother, dying of cancer, worrying more about the bills than getting well. That's personal. Hillary's intensity is personal mostly in terms of her own ego, and trying to compensate for failing the first time.

But--about the gloom. It's partly that people who feel deeply the need for change and certain changes are all too used to getting their hopes dashed at the last minute, especially on election day. It's even worse when there's been such extraordinary feeling behind a candidate who is running on hope, bringing people together, and who represents hope in so many ways. It's such a big change from how things have been done, represented by the Clintons, that it's amazing it's come this far--that's the feeling, that the balloon can be burst at any time, that the dream--once again--is denied.

Obama's closing argument--in those two minute spots, with him talking directly into the camera--expresses this fundamental rationale for his candidacy. There is still the underlying dynamic of the electorate's desire for change. If it doesn't surface this time overwhelmingly, it may be that the presentation of the message is getting stale. But the message itself is still the right one. At least Obama is not depending on typical last minute sniping on details, as in Hillary's ads. He's sticking with his fundamental case.

Obama will still be on track to win the nomination, even if he loses the popular vote in three of the four states tomorrow. But the old politics will be back in play, Clinton the survivor will be riding high, and she will set about systematically trying to destroy Obama. The catastrophizing goes further to disillusioning the millions who have poured their heart into the Obama campaign, leaving the Democratic Party worse off than it was before.

This is quite understandable--I've seen such defeat turn young people away from politics. There is the sense that Obama needs to close the deal tomorrow or this thing gets ugly--and even more exhausting. But even if Hillary gets a few votes more, basks in the media light for a week, the Obama campaign won't give up--more money will flood into it, and there will be more victories beginning next week. But it will also be a long, long six weeks until the Pennsylvania primary... If this afternoon's gloom turns out to be justified.

Monday Morning Reality Check

Hillary Clinton is spending most of Monday in the state of Ohio, before evening events in Texas, then returns to Ohio for returns on Tuesday. Barack Obama has scheduled several events in Texas Monday, and will stay there for election night.

What does this tell us? The consensus has been that Hillary's best shot at a win is Ohio, but she may be worried enough about that to cancel her original plans to spend Sunday and Monday in Texas and instead must barnstorm through Ohio, the state that should have been solid for her by now. Either she feels she is behind or senses that she can get a bigger win if she stays there.

The consensus lately has been that Obama is stronger in Texas, but polls that showed him ahead were moving back to even, and over the line to Hillary. So he's playing defense as well. He can't believe that Ohio is a certainty.

So what happens if they split? Though Jake Tapper doesn't see Hillary dropping out if she wins Ohio, an LA Times piece today says this:

In a campaign that has frequently defied expectations, a consensus emerged as the candidates caromed across the country: Clinton must win Texas and Ohio to have any serious hope of sustaining her bid to become the nation's first female president. A split decision would not suffice, analysts said, and winning narrowly may not help.

"We're reaching a point where -- not all voters, but lots of voters -- are starting to feel it's time for the party to coalesce around a candidate," said Geoffrey D. Garin, a veteran Democratic pollster who is nonaligned in the contest. "The Clinton campaign has to have a compelling and persuasive reason to go on. . . . She's got to come out of Tuesday with people believing that she has a realistic path to the nomination."

This is pretty much what Bill Richardson said on Face the Nation Sunday, and it remains to be seen, depending on Tuesday's outcome, whether he was speaking for himself only, or if he's stating the position of the "unaligned nations" within the Democratic Party.

It may take a great deal of pressure--in fact, it may take a super-delegate tide--because Hillary Clinton on 60 Minutes Sunday said she wasn't going to drop out, and that her husband didn't secure his nomination until June.

The leftover buzz from Sunday...Really bad weather forecast in Ohio Tuesday...
Hillary " denial [ of Obama being Muslim] seems other than ironclad" and her adding "as far as I know" on 60 Minutes...What will Obama's two minute spot say that's set to play in every media market in Texas and Ohio Monday and Tuesday?

Also from the weekend: Obama endorsed by the Cincinatti Enquirer.

Sunday Spin

The impression of Sunday coverage is that Hillary Clinton has the momentum now, going into the last day of campaigning before the votes are counted in Ohio and Texas. The Clinton campaign may have successfully cowed the media with charges that they'd been unfair to Hillary, or the facts on the ground merit this, or a little of both.

The polls seems to have stopped moving except one or two points either way, within margins of error. Enthusiasm for Obama measured by his crowds has not abated, but at least for one event in Ohio, enthusiasm--even rebellion-- seems to have returned to Hillary's campaign.

One story suggests the Obama campaign itself sees both big states as very close, and they aren't optimistic about taking Ohio. Al G. at the Field projects that Clinton will indeed win the popular vote in Ohio, but will not get more delegates. The same may be true of Texas.

If Hillary wins one or both, plus Rhode Island, ABC's Jake Tapper believes she'll surely stay in the race. The impression one gets today is that this Tuesday is another Super Tuesday situation, in which Obama weathers the storm, actually gets more delegates, and then goes on another winning streak until Pennsylvania. Clinton is apparently unprepared in any other upcoming contest, while the Obama campaign has already started.

This is not necessarily what will happen. DHinMI at Kos shows how Obama has overperformed in terms of pre-election polling by more than 8%. The Obama ground game plus new voters has generated big unforeseen numbers before, as recently as Wisconsin.

But Ohio and Texas are different in terms of Hillary's prior support in both states, much stronger than in Wisconsin. The polls seems to indicate that she's holding on to her core voters: blue collar and women in Ohio, women and Latinos in Texas. No one knows yet if her national security arguments--the fear factor--are making a difference, but Obama has been more on defense, even needing to fend off once more the charges that he is secretly Muslim. As astonishing as that may be at this point. He has also been counterattacking, however, which doesn't address his core constituency but may influence other voting groups, such as white men in Texas, a key to the state (some say.)

If Obama wins big in both big states, then it is over, and his campaign appears to be spending mightily to make that happen. If he doesn't, the Clintonistas will use that big effort against him, to sow doubt that his candidacy has staying power. Her campaign has been saying as much and the media would possibly be open to a change in the storyline--because they almost always are--if she so much as squeaks out a popular vote win in one big state.

To add to the expectations game, Bill Richardson said Sunday that Tuesday should decide the race, that it is becoming too divisive, and that the clear leader after Tuesday should be the nominee. That would most certainly be Obama. This Sunday spin spills over to Monday in the New York Times which reports Richardson's comments, along with calls for Hillary to drop out unless she wins both states by large margins from Senators John Kerry and Dick Durbin, Obama supporters.

Clinton campaigned furiously in Ohio Sunday, while Obama had two events in the state before returning home to Illinois. He will head to Texas Monday (San Antonio, Dallas area, Houston), and will be in Texas on election night. Clinton is scheduled to remain in Ohio all day Monday, before evening events in Texas.

Al G. warns that it's going to be a long night finding out what's happened in Ohio, especially since the Cleveland area ballots are probably going to be the last to be counted (and that's Obama country.) There are also concerns that the election won't go smoothly, despite the record early voting. As a result of "allegations" of electronic vote theft in Ohio in 2004, much of the state has turned to paper ballots for the first time in awhile.