Will It Be Over Soon?

The debate did suggest the possibility that all this will be over soon. First there was Obama telling a reporter that after March 4, the party ought to get together and work this out. Then there was the graceless comment yesterday by Bill Clinton:"If she wins Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be. It's all on you." Which is graceless because it places the burden--or the blame--on her supporters in these states. He's repeated the sentiment today, though without the sour grapes sound.

Then came the conciliatory statements Hillary made in the debate, seeming to say her campaign won't fight to the end, specifically over super-delegates. I take that with a grain of salt, but it could be Hillary putting something on the record to control her own campaign staff. But it's only a recognition of reality at this point. The idea of counting Florida and Michigan as if they were real primaries has gone nowhere, except to elicit powerful opposition. The idea that super-delegates would determine the winner against the outcome of the contests, ditto. And even as a practical matter, ever since this strategy was floated, Hillary has been losing super-delegates while Obama has been gaining them.

The super-delegate situation is muted especially by Obama's lead in elected delegates being more than 150, and his popular vote margin of more than one million. Obama also just won his 11th contest in a row, when the Democrats Abroad results finally came in. Obama won in every country, and ended up with a 2-1 margin.

Moreover, Hillary's chances of winning Ohio and Texas by a substantial enough margin to cut into Obama's delegate lead significantly are waning with each passing day. While the possibility that Obama will win one or both states is growing every day. The polls show all the momentum in these states is towards him. His campaign is promoting participation in the early voting system in Texas, and sure enough, people are voting early in record numbers. He's got the most powerful unions on his side now, and the mayor of Cleveland has just endorsed him. The mayor of Columbus endorsed him months ago, and those are the two biggest cities in the state. The governor is for Clinton, but it is mayors who get out the vote--as Obama learned in Los Angeles, where the mayor backed Clinton.

The last ditch effort to support a financially drained Hillary operation with a 527 organization seeking to raise $10 million in $100,000 donations has met with a storm of controversy, as it is evidently designed to circumvent--that is, violate--campaign law. Moreover, the Obama campaign is raising more than $30 million a month, and will soon celebrate its one millionth donor.

The Obama campaign has the money, and it looks like they are willing to use it to end this in Texas and Ohio. But Obama is closing the gap in Pennsylvania, too.

If on March 4, Obama wins all that day's contests by convincing margins, then the march of the party elders to Clinton's door on March 5 begins, assuming she hasn't dropped out by then. This is no longer a "delusional" possibility. It's too early to say that this is likely. But its likelihood grows every day.

Austin, We Have Lift-Off

Those who watched only the first few minutes of the Austin debate heard Hillary Clinton begin by invoking two powerful names for Democrats in Texas, who both not coincidentally were women: Barbara Jordan (whose birthday it was) and Ann Richards. She made a nice, long and fairly abstract pitch for her candidacy.

Then Barack Obama talked not about symbols of the party, but about the problems of voters today, in direct and not abstract terms. And on the symbology front, he quoted Barbara Jordan, after saying she was a hero to him (thus reminding us that she was black as well as female.) Advantage Obama.

Those who sat through the detailed answers on health care learned that both candidates could give detailed answers on health care. They also heard Obama say again that the difference is not so much in their ideas but in how they propose to make them real--in his case, by inviting the American public into the debate (something that Hillary did not do in her attempt to enact universal health care in 1993) and by being a Washington outsider not beholden to the past or to lobbyists.

Texans looking for keys to let them know one candidate or another knew the Texas issues that concerned them got something from both. A question invited Hillary to say why Obama is not ready to be commander in chief, an implication she is making on the campaign trail. She backed off, and talked a lot about how she would make a good one. Hillary seemed to talk a lot about everything. I'd be interested in seeing figures on how much time she got to talk versus Obama's time. Obama's answer to the commander in chief question was short and to the point: if I didn't think I was ready, I wouldn't run. My first job is to keep America safe. (to paraphrase.) Nothing he hasn't said before, but direct and to the point.

For whoever was watching just short of an hour into this, Obama deftly destroyed Hillary's last gasp tactic in her speeches as recently as today: her repeated line "Let's get real." Obama said that it implied that "the people who've been voting for me or are involved in my campaign are somehow delusional. The twenty million people who have paid attention to 19 debates, and the editorial boards all across the country, at the newspapers who have given me endorsements, including every major newspaper here in the state of Texas, the thinking is they're somehow being duped, that eventually they're going to see the reality of things. Well, I think they perceive reality of what's going on in Washington very clearly. And what they see is that if we don't bring the country together, stop the endless bickering, actually focus on solutions, and reduce the special interests that have dominated Washington, that we will not get anything done. And the reason that this campaign has done so well is because people understand it is not just a matter of people putting forth policy positions--Senator Clinton and I share a lot of policy positions--but if we can't inspire the American people to get involved in their government, and if we can't inspire them to go beyond the racial divisions, and the religious divisions and the regional divisons that have plagued our politics for too long, then we will see the kind of gridlock and non-performance in Washington that is resulting in families suffering in very real ways--I'm running for President to start doing something about that suffering, and so are the people who are behind my campaign."

Now let's just look at this statement. He used Hillary's two latest buzzwords against her "let's get real" and "solutions." He reaffirmed his strength: "inspiration." And he succinctly made his case for why he should be President. It was a complete moment, and as Howard Fineman said on MSNBC, at that point the debate was over. Obama had won it completely.

His strategy throughout seemed to be to hone in on his rationale, as he did there, and to confront Hillary's attacks on him--that was the subtext of what he said about health care, taking time to show that her attack--as through direct mail in Wisconsin--saying that he's arbitrarily leaving people out of his plan, is false. He also used a question to directly confront the charge that he's all talk and no action, with specific instances of action. Hillary gave him an opening for one, by mentioning the scandal of medical care at Walter Reed for returning soldiers--Obama had taken the lead on the congressional response.

A question on the plagarism charge gave Obama the opportunity to make it sound as ridiculous as it is. Hillary, perhaps a bit sandbagged into affirming the charge her campaign made, repeated that a candidate's words should be his own, and then gave the obviously pre-prepared zinger, "It's not hope you can believe in, it's hope you can xerox." The crowd booed. Instead of quoting instances where Hillary had used the words of others, Obama let the boos handle it for him, and said this is the kind of politics we want to leave behind.

Then came the closing responses to the question of what crisis in their lives each had overcome had meant the most, or something like that. Obama said he looked at the arc of his life and he'd learned in his youth to take responsibility for his actions. (It may take awhile, but think of the implications for the Clinton White House.) Hillary gave what was for her a passionate reply. She said everybody knew about her crises. Then the rest of her answer was variously interpreted as a kind of admission that she's not going to win. (She also seemed to indicate earlier that there won't be a superdelegate fight to the bitter end--although I wouldn't over-interpret what she said.) Then she said that her travails pale in comparison to some wounded soldiers she met, one with his face blown off.

I had a different response to this than the commentators on TV and on the Internet. To me it was smarmy, a bit of noblesse oblige, and the sentimental cliche of there but for the grace of God go I. Obama referred to things he actually went through, and how they relate to his actions and beliefs now. If I'm a Texas voter, I think I'm moved more by somebody who was raised by a single mom, made some mistakes and then devoted his life to true public service, than I am by a wealthy lady who pities wounded soldiers, especially as they suffered those wounds in a war she voted to authorize.

But it seems everybody else thought it was so sincere and emotional. At least until, in a really cruel irony, it turns out she stole both the ideas and the wording of what she said. Some of it from her husband, which puts it on the same level as what she called Obama's candidacy into question over--the use of a few sentences suggested by a friend and co-chair of his campaign. But some of it--and this is why I thought when I heard it that I'd heard it before--from John Edwards. In a debate (more than one really.) The most recent of which was last month.

This actually comes closer to the definition of plagarism--using someone elses' words without acknowlegement and without their permission. Unless John Edwards is collaborating with her in secret.

(And now, there's a charge that she wasn't even there to witness the moment she described.)

C.W. commentators gave the debate to Hillary on points but because she didn't do damage, Obama wins. Nah. It was worse than that for her. He made a case for his candidacy, and destroyed her negative charges against him. She talked a lot.

Hey Nineteen

One of the notable pleasures of this campaign season is the almost complete absense on TV and in the media of the current President. He's had to go to Africa to get some air time. Now the latest poll shows that President Bush's approval is down to 19%--that's less than a fifth, with 77%--that's more than three fourths--disapproving.

Hawaii 10-0

Hawaii is giving their favorite son a 50 point margin of victory, 75% of the votes going to Barack Obama, 24% to Hillary. Word so far is that the number of voters who participated in caucuses could reach 30,000. Some 4,000 participated last time.

This is the tenth contest in a row that Obama has won. Most of them have been won by large margins.

An Interesting Number

I took a peek at the full exit polls from Wisconsin again, and here's one that says something about the Obama appeal. In the category of church-going, there was a continuum of those who "attend church more than once a week" to those who never attend" choice. Obama won both of those extremes with the same percentage: 56%. For a couple of choices in between, it was up to 60%.

Also, as I noted below, CNN has the women's vote split 50-50. I don't know if that's actually an update, but it would seem to be. I believe there were a lot of people who voted in the evening.

Turning the Page

With over 90% of the vote counted in Wisconsin, Obama is leading by 17 points: 58% to 41%. It is a victory that validates the trends of the Virginia and Maryland results last week, but in a state where minorities--black, Latino and a significant number of Native Americans--comprise perhaps 10% of the population.

It is a victory across demographic groups. For example, this summary: The exit polls show that Obama cut deeply into Hillary's core constituencies in racking up his sizable victory in Wisconsin tonight. Obama made it very close among females, losing to Hillary by the slimmest of margins, 51%-49%. [Update: revised figures have it exactly 50-50.] He won by a sizable margin among middle-aged voters, 53%-46%. He won by decent margins among voters with an income less than $50,000. He won by big margins among self described moderates and conservatives. He won overwhelmingly among people who decided in the last week or the last three days, though Hillary won narrowly among those who decided in the last day.
He won narrowly among members of union households.

Further, exit polls showed the top three issues were the economy, the war and health care--and Obama won all three. There was a virtual tie on capability to be commander-in-chief, and Obama won the "cares about me" category.

Hillary's negative campaigning didn't work, and by something like 2-1 voters thought she was unfair. Obama had a large majority on the most electable in the fall, and over 80% of the voters said they would be satisfied with him as the party's nominee, while Clinton was in the low sixties.

In political campaign terms, Hillary again this week did not take voters from any categories she hadn't won before, and Obama did, big time. Obama increased his share of young and first time voters. Add in the delegates and popular votes won, the 9 victories in a row (with the 10th possibly coming within hours) and the momentum favoring Obama in Texas and Ohio, and the state of the campaign is this: barring something highly unusual, the question is not whether Barack Obama will be the 2008 Democratic nominee for President, but when.

To that point, Obama spoke with a reporter before his speech in Houston tonight and said, immediately after the contests of March 4 is an appropriate time for the party to decide that the nomination campaign should end.

As for how Obama energizes the electorate, Hillary alone got more votes than the entire Republican field.

By the way, Barack was kind enough to email me (and about a half million of his other close friends) with his take on the results:

Today, the people of Wisconsin voted overwhelmingly in favor of a new kind of politics. They rejected an onslaught of negative attacks and attempts to distract them from the common concerns we all have about the direction of our country. No doubt we'll hear much more of these attacks and distractions in the days to come. But the noise of these tired, old political games will not drown out the voices of millions calling for change.

So he's bracing for the full Clinton press. Now here are my forecasts: Her last chance: the debate Thursday. If she can't change the dynamic then, it will be too late by Friday. I expect Bill Richardson to endorse Obama tomorrow, and show up to campaign in Texas. Nobody else is predicting this that I know of. If John Edwards was thinking about endorsing Hillary, he must know that it's now too late. He either endorses Obama and campaigns for him in Ohio, or he waits until March 5 and begins the less than subtle attempt to tell Hillary it's over.

Obama talks about "turning the page" with the next election, which is exactly the right message--I mean, I might say "a fresh start" but...--and it has been the message the electorate wants to send since 2006. (So don't be surprised if Obama wins Pennsylvania, if it gets that far.) But as of tonight, for Hillary Clinton, the page is turning, and it's almost turned.

On, Wisconsin!

About 17 minutes after the polls closed, NBC called it for Obama in Wisconsin. Two minutes or so later, so did CNN. Now we watch for the dimensions, but the exit polls indicate: big, and across the board.

Expectations Game

There' still an hour and a half before polls close in Wisconsin, but the expectations game has begun. The Clinton people have reportedly pointed to exit polls signalling a big Obama victory, and told reporters they expect the networks to call it immediately. So of course reporters are wondering if they believe it's going to be closer than that, and they want to exceed the expectations they are creating.

Meanwhile, the Associated Press is framing expectations with this:

Wisconsin is almost the kind of state Hillary Rodham Clinton would have invented to win a Democratic presidential primary, brimming with whites and working class voters who usually support her. A poor performance there Tuesday would raise big questions about her candidacy.

So is this the writer's attempt to frame something dramatic, or are they reading exit polls and getting a jump on how the results will be framed tonight? Are they setting expectations?

As Wisconsin goes, so goes Ohio? Another of the expectations, pushed by the Obama campaign, I believe. In any case, the usually reliable SUSA has a poll in Ohio that shows Obama closing the gap: Hillary has a nine point lead, as opposed to a 17 point lead last week. SUSA also shows Hillary with only a five point lead in Texas.

More on Wisconsin expectations or at least framing the results: Because Hillary went negative, particulary with the first negative TV ads, and she loses big, it will be interpreted as a rebuke on negative campaigning (although she's engaged in it in other ways at least as far back as New Hampshire.) And Keith just asked the key question on this: "If negative campaigning did work, will we see more of it? And if it didn't work, will we see lots more of it?"

Wisconsin Tuesday

Hold onto your hats. It's a cold, icy day in Wisconsin. Polls close in 2.5 hours. But leaked exit poll information point unambiguously to a big Obama victory. The leaks could be wrong (though multiple sources are being cited, the ultimate source may be one guy) and the exit polls wrong or deceptive, but all this is coming in just as students at the major U.s and people voting after work are voting.

Also reports on the Obama ground game are tremendous. Here's this from a Kos thread:

Update 2:25 pm: Obama supporters can relax, because the Obama volunteers are not. They are mad men/women. Just off the phone with Obama HQ in Madison. Some facts:
- Entire City of Madison was hit with lit Saturday - They're doing it again today; F&^* the cold, hitting the Isthmus and campus. - Students do not vote early; they vote when they want, between classes and beers. - Obama HQ on Gilman St. on UW Campus, ran out of phones (too many volunteers), and people used their cell phones to call lists of people. - Cold out (five degrees), but staff is manning an outside tent in Library mall until they drop or the polls close. - Staff is more hyper than I - Obama has been through their phone lists, so they have begun calling them again
This may be Madison-centric, but from here nothing can stop the Obama train; because there is not quit in these people. Wow. I'm 40-something; was I that freaking nuts when I was 20?

This confidence has been growing during the day, though early reports were of light turnout (weather related) in some districts. So maybe there will be some news sooner rather than later, when the polls close at 8 pm, which will be 6pm here in CA. (There's good anecdotals coming out of Hawaii, too, but those results won't be available until tomorrow probably.)

Wisconsin Monday part 2

The latest polls out of Wisconsin show Obama with a lead, but neither is particularly trustworthy. One is by a local TV station, the other by Public Policy Polling, which shows Obama with a 13 point lead. Their polls were off by more than 8 points for Super Tuesday. Still, they polled over the weekend so it's at least recent information.

Reputedly the Obama campaign's own polling showed him ahead by 7 points as of Friday (also ahead by 5 in Hawaii) as of Friday. Hillary came into the state for two days of campaigning (Saturday and Monday) and made some additional ad buys.

But most other signs are positive. With lots of undecideds (at least as of Friday) there's always the problem of late deciders, and with Hillary in the state today and the phenomenon of day of voting deciders going for the name they know best, she could get a bump. Otherwise, the dimensions of the Obama effort are becoming clearer: his presence in the state since last Tuesday, money spent in media, etc. The ground game will be a crucial factor tomorrow. If that's up to snuff, it could be a big Obama night. Even though some in the media are lowering expectations for Hillary even more (Chris Matthews suggesting that if she comes within 7 points it's good for her), a 10 to 15 point victory would look very good, especially if the demographic breakdowns are good.

Al G. is analyzing district by district over at The Field, and he has Obama picking up delegates or being even in every district so far. He's planning to predict the delegate count tomorrow morning.

As you might see below in the comments section of "Wisconsin Monday" part one, Senate candidate in 2012 Ben Masel left a comment to say "I've since upgraded my sense of Obama's strength in smalltown and rural Wisconsin, so my range is now Obama by 6-8.[%]" He believes the youth vote in rural areas will make a big difference. Check out his specific predictions.


What to expect Tuesday: The weather forecast for Wisconsin is for cold and some snow. If turnout is huge, it has almost always been to Obama's benefit, but perhaps especially so tomorrow. But bear in mind what Ben Masel said: Wisconsin traditionally has high percentage turnout. What will tell, I presume, is higher numbers.

Tuesday night: first of all, don't expect returns from Hawaii. They're not likely until Wednesday. Polls close in Wisconsin at 8 pm their time. As much as I'd like another night like last Tuesday--when the TV anchors were literally timing their projection of Obama victory in Maryland to the second the polls were to close--I'm not expecting an early projection.

Obama will be in Texas Tuesday, for an event in San Antonio and a big rally in Houston, where I've "heard" at least two high-profile Latino entertainers will appear and endorse him. (He's already received some big local endorsements in Texas, and a huge one from the Mexican American Democrats, the oldest Latino party organization.) The Houston event begins before polls close in Wisconsin, so I'm not sure if we'll hear his victory speech from there. But it should be a very TV friendly event.

Already Obama is booming in Texas. A poll out today shows he's virtually tied with Hillary there now, which is a big swing even before he begins campaigning there. Judging from all I've heard, Texas could very well be Hillary's Waterloo regardless of what happens in Wisconsin tomorrow. If Obama wins Texas and comes close in Ohio on March 4, there will be a lot of pressure within the party for Hillary to cease her campaign. At this point, I don't think even a narrow win in Wisconsin will stop the Obama boom in Texas, but a big Obama victory in Wisconsin could result in faster movement in Ohio.

Obama held his last rally in Wisconsin at Beloit College (hey, I debated there once in college!) Monday night. According to a local TV station report, some people waited for six hours in the cold to get into the event. On, Wisconsin!

Just Words?

The Clinton campaign, in the person of Howard Wolfson, made a big issue today out of a powerful part of Barack Obama's speech in Wisconsin the other night, quoted here, in which he quoted several famous political phrases, and asked the question, "just words?" This was in response to the Clinton charge that all he's about is making speeches. It turns out that Governor Deval Patrick, responding to the same sort of charge in his campaign a few years ago, quoted some of the same phrases, and also appended "just words?"

Wolfson charged it was plagarism, and tried to make this a question of inauthencity and character. Obama disputed the larger point--saying that he writes most of his own speeches, and wrote two books--but allowed that he probably should have acknowledged Patrick, a friend with whom he swaps ideas and phrases (which was confirmed by Patrick.)

The networks used the story, and investigated Obama's rejoinder, that Hillary has used phrases of his. So they included instances in which Hillary used his words and those of her husband and John Edwards. So the story goes nowhere really. The fact that the Hillary camp made a big deal out of it made it a story, but the main effect was to shoulder aside that Bill Clinton story that looked like it was going to dominate the day, with footage of him shouting at hecklers and getting in the face of someone else at a rope line, with angry face and wagging finger.

Otherwise, to steal from somebody I heard on TV, the response has to be: is this the best you got? Plagarism is a serious charge to some of us, but this doesn't come close. For one thing, this was an impromptu addition, and not part of his prepared text. So there was no plagarism in the text. Since the person who "wrote" or originated the phrases doesn't object to Obama using them--and in fact suggested to Obama that he use them-- even without attribution, there is no case.

It was also a very small part of the speech, although Wolfson made it sound like everything Obama has ever said should therefore be called into question. Let the rabid right bloggers get to work! As for Wolfson, to say he is well named is an insult to wolves. All he is about is attack, and the truth is not germane. Mark my words: when Obama is the nominee, and John McCain loses one of his speechwriting advisors who says he'll quit rather than write negative stuff about Obama, it wouldn't surprise me if that void is filled by Howard Wolfson. If he doesn't have somebody to malign, the man's life is meaningless.

TV played the Patrick and Obama sections, and what struck me is that Obama's delivery was so much better. Patrick had the preacher thing going, but Obama's had more of an edge, and it was well integrated into the point he was making.

But the real point of this affair, it seems to me, is that the Clinton campaign created another non-issue and made the absurd claim that it calls into question Obama's entire candidacy, while the Obama campaign said not a word that I know of--and certainly didn't call an hour conference call with reporters--to point out how out of control Bill Clinton appeared yesterday, which calls into question Hillary's entire candidacy, because we don't know what his role is going to be. In the end, I believe this story will tell more.

Wisconsin Monday

I moaned about the dearth of specific information on Wisconsin, not only here but on Daily Kos. There I got some answers from the field--and speaking of that, from the Field later on.

One commenter--a Wisconsin U.S. Senator candidate no less-- responded with a pretty precise district breakdown, and others added to that. (This is what Al G. has started doing at the Field blog.) Ben Masel's general conclusion: Nobody knows how to poll this primary, wildcards include at the polls registration, crossover, and weather...Statewide, Obama by 4-6%. Turnout: Highest of any of the States in the cycle.

There were a number of comments from Obama campaigners in Wisconsin who were uneasy. Several agreed it was likely to be close, and there are a lot of undecideds even at this point. Some felt a Hillary victory was still possible, though the delegate split is likely to be pretty even.

One commenter (appropriately called notscared) made this (comforting) observation that also has a ring of plausibility:

Obama wins by at least 10 points...
I don't think this one is going to be close for the following reasons.
Obama has a superior ground game. If both campaigns had an equal ground and were campaigning hard I would give the nod to Clinton because the demographics suite her. But I think his ground games makes a big difference.
Same day registration. This benefits Obama because of the excitement factor. Most of Clinton's supporters are already in the system and are more then likely to be polled, not so for new Obama supporters.

Independents and Republicans. Independents and Republicans can vote is this primary and this obviously benefits Obama because of his cross-over appeal.
Endorsements. Endorsements don't usually matter but without a heavy Clinton presence strong Endorsements from the local politicians make a difference to the undecides. Add 1.5 to 2 points for everyone of the above and you should have a strong Obama victory.

Perhaps because her events were snowed out Sunday, perhaps due to the polling, Hillary is reportedly going to hold campaign events in Wisconsin all day Monday, instead of leaving after one event this morning. Obama has an event in Ohio in the morning, and one in Beloit, Wisconsin later in the day.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign waited until the last minute to put out a negative flyer accusing Obama of not covering 15 million people with his health care plan, and asking on the front of it--over a photo of a demographically balanced group of actors--"Barack Obama, which of these people don't deserve health care?" The Obama campaign countered with a conference call to reporters with the Wisconsin governor and also with Ted Kennedy, who called the flyer "a distortion, a misrepresentation and wrong."

This is the same tactic used in New Hampshire, with a last day flyer questioning Obama's support of a woman's right to choose. Hillary squeaked through with a lot of women's votes, though the flyer's lies ultimately led to several prominent women activists condemning it, and at least one withdrew her support from Hillary and became an active supporter of Obama.

Slight update: There seems to be a lot of buzz about a couple of campaign appearances by Bill Clinton, in which he engaged in angry exchanges with hecklers. If this dominates the media guff today, that can't be good for Hillary, though it depends on how and whether it sinks in with voters in Wisconsin.

Oh, Wisconsin?

I was only 14 and it was the first campaign--really, the first news--I ever followed, but my memory is that the 1960 primary in Wisconsin between Hubert Humphrey and John F. Kennedy was big news, covered every day by reporters and camera crews on the scene.

Kennedy's win in Wisconsin and West Virginia were the defining moments of his campaign. I believe Wisconsin could be very important this year as well for Barack Obama. But the press isn't covering it. Even the vaunted political blogs like Hotline and Politico are just tap-dancing: noting the ads and the back and forth, but doing no reporting. Same with the big papers, as far as I can see.

So we're left with assumptions and signs, and the valuable eyewitness accounts of people there, who neverthless aren't experienced reporters. I'm back to feeling uneasy about the whole thing. Especially with an ARG poll showing Clinton ahead in Wisconsin, 49-42%. The internals are even more potentially damaging to the Obama campaign, reflecting divisions he'd transcended in Virginia and Maryland, especially the white vote which this poll shows him losing by 8 points.

Why is Wisconsin being ignored?


So it wasn't Hawaii, it was North Carolina: that's where Obama went today, to meet with John Edwards. If there was some evidence that an Edwards endorsement could help with the blue collar white vote, his endorsement would be important. I don't see any such evidence. Endorsing Obama is at this point more important to Edwards' credibility than to Obama's campaign. Stories are that Clinton has been courting him more, and her economic rhetoric has begun to sound more like his. But Edwards couldn't sell it, and neither can she. Only Obama can and Edwards ought to realize this, if he has eyes and ears.

I don't post many photos here, but this one...it's
the 3/4 mile line of people in Eau Claire, Wisc.,
today waiting to get in to hear Barack Obama. The
temperature was 15F. There's more photos and an
account of the event here. According to the local
newspaper, 3500 got in, with an overflow crowd
nearby that Obama, as usual, said hello to before
the event. (You can click on the photo to see it
bigger.)

Hawaii Anyone?

C-SPAN cablecast the speeches at the Wisconsin Democratic dinner Saturday, both Hillary and Obama and everyone in between. Before I started watching I saw a thread at Kos about it (which is how I knew it was on.) Someone had heard the announcer say that Obama would be campaigning in Hawaii. That would be a big change in his schedule, but several others confirmed they heard it, too.

Of course, it's possible that the announcer got it wrong--Obama is apparently scheduled for a conference call with supporters in Hawaii, not a visit. But then someone mentioned that big snowstorms are due tomorrow in Wisconsin, so people may not be getting out to campaign events. So maybe Obama was taking that opportunity for a surprise visit to Hawaii.

If Obama's event is snowed out, so would Hillary's likely be--and she's already cancelled her Monday event(s) in Eau Claire, where thousands lined up in 15 degree weather to hear Obama today. So while Hillary freezes in her only full day of campaigning in Wisconsin, Obama basks in the sunshine of the state where he was raised. It's quite an image, even if it doesn't actually happen.

As for the speeches, I caught some of Hillary's. She was focused and energetic, though her voice was a bit raw. She also wore a shade of blue that nearly matched her backdrop, so from the back of the room she must have looked like a head floating above the lecturn. Obama gave his stump speech--I am amazed at how he continues to put feeling into it--with a couple of expanded sections, and a direct response to the latest Clintonian mantra--Hillary's in "the solution business." He referred to his 20 years in public life creating and advocating solutions, but emphasized that great solutions are useless unless they are enacted. (A variation on a now standard line: "Washington is where good ideas go to die.") Then he riffed on the idea that speeches and words aren't important. " I have a dream--just words? The only thing we have to fear is fear itself--just words?" He said the ability to inspire and explain is key to getting public support, which is the key to getting things done.

And as usual a dark suit, a white shirt--both of which stood out against the background-- and a good looking blue tie, which picked up the color behind him just enough. Among the many things about Obama I like in personal terms (he's left-handed and a night owl--two sure signs of superior intelligence), I like his taste in ties. I always hated Kerry's damn pink ties.


The only other news I picked up this evening is another big newspaper endorsement for Obama, from the Houston Chronicle. : Obama is both the epitome of the American Dream and well-positioned to reach out to an international community alienated by recent U.S. go-it-alone policies.
The passion and excitement that Obama has brought to the race can only stimulate more citizens to participate in the electoral process. The Chronicle urges Texas Democrats to cast what could be decisive ballots for his presidential nomination. "

A San Antonio newspaper story confirms what I heard a Texas Latino pol say on TV last primary night--that the young Latino vote is going for Obama, the older to Clinton, but there are a lot of young Latino voters.

And while Clintonians jockeyed to keep their Florida and Michigan phony delegates in play, and their claim on super-delegates to settle things, the Gallup poll showed Obama with his first "statistically significant lead" in their daily tracking poll, 49% to 42%.

Wisconsin (Less Worried)

I'm feeling a little better about it, because I finally found two pertinent stories: one that says that although Hillaryites have 4 TV ads going in Wisconsin, the Obama campaign is outspending them 4-1 in the major media markets of Milwaukee and Madison to put their ads actually on the air.

The Obama ad campaign started earlier as well. Though the TMP reporter suggests that since Hillary's ads and Obama's come-backs are still hammering Hillary's hitting Obama for not debating her in Wisconsin may be getting some traction.

But the most telling news to me is that Hillary, who is in Wisconsin for the first time today (while Obama has been there since Tuesday), is leaving the state a day before she'd originally planned. So she'll have one event in the state on Monday. This suggests that she's given up already.

Also, Wisconsin's biggest newspaper has just endorsed Obama. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote:

Our recommendation in Wisconsin's primary on Tuesday for the Democratic nomination is Barack Obama. That's our recommendation because change and experience are crucial to moving this country forward after what will be eight years of an administration careening from mistake to catastrophe to disaster and back again. The Illinois senator is best-equipped to deliver that change, and his relatively shorter time in Washington is more asset than handicap.

In an interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board on Wednesday, the first-term senator proved himself adept at detail and vision.

But I'm still bothered by the dearth of information about Wisconsin. I don't like the idea that everyone is assuming an Obama victory, or that the media has bought into the Clinton script that the next meaningful contests are Ohio and Texas.

Wisconsin Worries

If Barack Obama wins Wisconsin by 10 or 15 points, and does so with support across demographics as he did in Virginia (older, white working class, women), then the race for the Democratic nomination is essentially over.

But it is by no means a sure thing. In fact, this coming Tuesday is making me really nervous. The CW supposes that Hillary coming into Wisconsin only this weekend is a sign she's written the state off, partly because she doesn't have the money to spare. But she's running ads in the state, including two negative ads--the first of this campaign. If you're running a negative campaign, showing up close to election day makes sense: you sow doubts and clinch the sale in person, before the person you're attacking can respond.

What little polling that's been announced agrees that the race is close, with Obama ahead by four or five points. His victories this past Tuesday were so huge that only a five point win in Wisconsin might be interpreted as a Hillary comeback.

On the other hand, a solid Obama win that looks a lot like Virginia and Maryland in terms of demographics will make those results all the more powerful, and will suggest that Clinton really is not going to do well enough in Ohio to change the dynamic of the Obama march to the nomination.

Yet there is the real possibility that Clinton could win Wisconsin, and embarass Obama in the place of his birth--Hawaii, which votes the same day, and where she has established party support that generally delivers the vote. The headlines alone would change the narrative.

Fortunately, the Obama campaign seems not to be buying into the media narrative of Clinton being finished. Obama has been in the state all week. Although he and Michelle have also gone to Ohio, he doesn't seem to be taking anything for granted. (Though he scheduled campaign stops on Sunday instead of taking the day off as planned, tells me that they're worried about a Hillary surprise, too.) His campaign answered Hillary's first negative ad within 24 hours. She came back with another, although I haven't seen any information on how big an ad buy her campaign made, or where the ads were showing.

The silver lining of her attack would be, should Obama win big, that it doesn't work, and in my view, it's given Obama the opportunity to parry her attacks--and he's doing so with more fluidity and calm sense than anyone I can think of. That has to bode well for the general election campaign--and super-delegates will notice that.

Hillary and Obama will both speak at a big Dem dinner in Wisconsin tomorrow evening. Now that they are both in the state, maybe we'll get some more reporting out of it. And some newer and hopefully better polls should come out over the weekend. Clearly Obama has all the momentum now--even in super-delegates, he's picked up 13 of those who've gone public since Super Tuesday, while Hillary has lost a net of 3. But all that momentum will slow or stop if he doesn't win Wisconsin convincingly. And if he does, it will continue and grow to unstoppable proportions.

So I'm nervous. But not so much that a little information coming out of Wisconsin wouldn't cure.

More Valentines

Another super-delegate, this time from New Jersey, has switched from Clinton to Obama: Christine "Roz" Samuels, former Secretary-Treasurer of the Newark Teachers' Union, Local 481, and former Commissioner of the Essex County Board of Elections. According to this report by Beverly Davis:

A turn-off for Samuels was the "stuff that the Clintons did down in South Carolina." It didn't make her feel good about handing Hillary Clinton another vote. "I didn't like what I saw down in South Carolina and how the Clintons were running their campaign."

"Obama is a good role model and he's turning out the votes, not only in Montclair but throughout Essex County. Most of my family and friends are voting for Obama. That's the biggest reason I've switched over to Obama is because of the kids. They're our future and Obama gets them excited and involved," she said.

Also dumping Hillary (but not yet embracing Barack) is Pittsburgh super-delegate Sophie Masloff. Man, I haven't heard that name in years--Sophie was the unlikely but beloved Mayor of Pittsburgh awhile back. She's 90 years old now, and probably still living in that senior apartment building in Squirrel Hill, which was my neighborhood when I lived in Pittsburgh in the late 80s and early to mid 90s. As much of a character and a grandmotherly figure as she was even then, she was also an astute politician. Apparently she still is.

And all this was happening while Barack Obama was at home spending Valentine's Day with his family. Michelle Obama has said that he hasn't missed a special day, even a parent-teacher conference, since the beginning of the campaign.

Valentines

A couple of Valentines are in the works for Barack Obama, giving the love big time. From the NY Times: The Service Employees International Union, widely seen as the nation’s most politically potent union, is likely to endorse Senate Barack Obama on Thursday evening, a top union official said...Also today, the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents 1.1 million workers in the United States, announced this afternoon that its board had endorsed Mr. Obama."

The SEIU and UFCW will be of special help in Texas among Latino workers.

Obama also got the love from Lincoln Chafee, longtime Republican Senator from Rhode Island who lost his bid for reelection over his opposition to the Iraq war. He announced he's at least temporarily changing his registration to Democrat in order to vote for Barack Obama in the R.I. primary.

Speaking of defections, two of Hillary's principal black supporters and super-delegates have declared now for Obama. According to the NY Times: Representative John Lewis, an elder statesman from the civil rights era and one of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most prominent black supporters, said Thursday night that he planned to cast his vote as a superdelegate for Senator Barack Obama in hopes of preventing a fight at the Democratic convention." An earlier AP report says Rep. David Scott, also of Georgia, said he was switching to Obama to better reflect the will of his constituents.

And word is that legendary Texas progressive populist Jim Hightower is getting set to campaign for Obama.

Any nervousness about Ohio has to be tempered by the news that Obama's best campaign team is already operating in the state, led by the guy who organized the Iowa caucus. The Clinton campaign also has a top operative there, and much of the political establishment as well as a lead in the polls--though that's been cut in half already. Obama's ground operation is getting in place, with 50 events scheduled across the state in the next week, while the Clintonians have two.

I've learned to pay attention to the accounts of local activists on Kos--they don't always indicate victory but they measure enthusiasm and effort. One account in Texas said that the number of people showing up for an organizing event got the response from the Obama field people that it was the biggest group anywhere for such an event. Similar accounts are coming in from Ohio--enthusiasm does translate into effort. So that even three weeks out, it now looks possible that Obama could actually win Texas and come close in Ohio.

Obama gets a Valentine from leftish feminist and excellent writer Barbara Ehrenreich in a column entitled Unstoppable Obama which begins:

When did you begin to think that Obama might be unstoppable? Was it when your grown feminist daughter started weeping inconsolably over his defeat in New Hampshire? Or was it when he triumphed in Virginia, a state still littered with Confederate monuments and memorabilia? For me, it was on Tuesday night when two Republican Virginians in a row called C-SPAN radio to report that they'd just voted for Ron Paul, but, in the general election, would vote for... Obama.

Ehrenreich, like Hightower, has to like the economic proposals Obama made yesterday, which are widely reviewed as populist and aimed at blue collar Americans, although there are proposals on credit card company transparency and bankruptcy that should appeal strongly to middle class professionals as well.

She's also the first I've seen to use the phrase I wrote for the Kerry campaign:

We, perhaps white people especially, look to him for atonement and redemption. All of us, of whatever race, want a fresh start. That's what "change" means right now: Get us out of here!

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?

In De-Brief

In his last campaign speeches before the Virginia vote, Bill Clinton made a veiled reference to the Obama campaign as smoke and mirrors. In fact the Potomac Primaries look like a forest fire. Virginia was supposed to be Hillary's best hope: Obama won it 64% to 35%. It looks like he'll win the closed Democratic primary in Maryland with over 60%, and he won DC by an astounding 75% to 24%.

Two media narratives emerged: that Obama had won key demographics that Clinton counts on in contests ahead: older, blue collar, Catholic, Latino. He again split the white vote (as in CA). He's piling up even greater majorities in his strength areas: African Americans, young voters, more affluent Democrats, plus Independents and Republicans. Although black voters constitute about 30% in Virginia, that was enough to win him the majority of women, although Hillary's last bastion remains white women. Perhaps most ominously for Texas, Ohio and PA, he won strongly among white men.

The second narrative, quantified by Chuck Todd at NBC, is that Obama's lead in delegates won in primaries and caucuses may be insurrmountable. Hillary must get 60% of the vote in Texas and Ohio and Pennsylvania. Howard Fineman of NBC reported that if Hillary is down by more than 100 delegates when the primaries are over, she's finished. Struggling for super-delegates at that point would make the nomination not worth having. Right now, most delegate counts (including or excluding estimates of super-delegates) have Obama ahead, and he's ahead in total popular votes. At this point, not even counting Florida and Michigan would be able to save Hillary.

Put them together you have: Obama the frontrunner. Obama is the buzz.

Meanwhile the Clinton campaign shakeup continued. Her deputy campaign manager, who was close to her fired campaign manager, has resigned. Later it became known that two key members of the Hillary internet effort have been "reassigned." And as a possible precursor already to the flight of Clinton super-delegates, Bill Clinton's campaign manager in 1992 is expected to endorse Obama, and help him out both in Ohio and among super-delegates.

Obama's victory speech was in Madison, Wisconsin, before 18,000 enthusiasts a week before that state's primary. It was his stump speech with significant additions. Some were stylistic: he was using his own life more as an example of points he made. Some were political: he began focusing on John McCain, and began referring to the "Bush-McCain" Republicans. He hit harder on the war in Iraq, and he emphasized economic issues.

Although Wisconsin seems hospitable to the Hillary appeal, it mirrors Virginia in so many ways--especially in being an open primary--that there's some but not a lot of prospects for her there, especially since she's already concentrating on Texas, two weeks later.

Speaking of Texas, a couple of Texan politicians were interviewed, and both seemed to feel that Obama's chances there are better than advertised. He's appealing to the younger Latinos, where there are a lot of them, and because of the intracacies of the Texas system, Obama's appeal to black voters is given greater weight. One guy also said that white Texas men disdain Hillary. She's campaigning this week along the border in heavily Latino areas. They thought concentrating her efforts there was a risky strategy.

Ohio may be a different landscape in three weeks, but right now Hillary is substantially ahead in the polls, and is reportedly about to be endorsed by space hero and former Senator from Ohio John Glenn. You have to figure that Ohio is where John Edwards can help, if he endorses Obama and campaigns for him there. But with a large black population and support by key mayors in big cities, plus a large student population, Obama is not going to get blown out in any event.

As for the impact of the day and the night, it's impossible to measure yet. I frankly feel a little stunned myself. Donna Brazile referred to the Obama campaign as a "metaphysical force" in this campaign. I don't really know what she meant exactly, but she's probably right.

Another Obama Night

I'm sitting here trying to figure out how the Virginia and DC results could be better for Obama. 100% of the vote? While the exact dimensions of his victories will await final vote counts, exit polls reflect those last SUSA surveys--he's winning across virtually every demographic--including women, older voters, working class voters and Latinos, all previous Hillary voters. Black voters make up about 30% of the voters in Virginia, so even his astounding 90% of that vote can't account for this. Obama won just under half of the white vote, according to exit polls. Obama is also getting substantial support from independents and Republicans.

The networks called the race for him instantly as they did in DC. The polls in Maryland are remaining open for another hour and a half, ostensibly because of ice storms, but probably because the Maryland political establishment, which is backing Hillary, hope that the voters they hope are coming back home from their federal jobs in Washington will get to the polls, so to at least increase her vote total and give her more delegates. Turnout everywhere is major, even with this bad weather.

Actually the networks are paying more attention to the Republican races, still too close to call in VA more than an hour after polls closed, because the dominant voters are conservative Evangelicals. Not only is this a dramatic repudiation of McCain (even if he pulls out a narrow victory) but it also indicates where Republicans might go in the general if Obama is the candidate. The turnout for the Dem primary is running 2 to 1 over the GOPers, which can indicate a lot of things, but it does suggest that non-ultra conservatives are either staying home or voting for Obama.

Latinos Turn?

Although Hillary reputedly won much of her margin in CA with Latino votes and she generally has won that demographic in past contests, Obama has been making progress, as he did with other demographics. There may well be further evidence of that in the results tonight, because in SurveyUSA's polling, Obama was winning in the Latino category (although the sample was small) in Virginia and Maryland.

However, Latinos are a big segment in Texas, and a shoe may have just dropped that will affect that vote. Over the weekend, the Clinton campaign replaced Patti Solis Doyle, daughter of a Mexican immigrant, as campaign manager. At first it was officially positioned as an amiable transition, even a resignation because she is a mother with young children in a long campaign. But more recently, there have been stories--which have the look of being "leaks" from the campaign--that she was fired for screwing up, specifically for not telling Hillary how bad the campaign finances were.

Today El Diario in La Prensa, New York's leading Spanish language daily, referred to Patti Solis as a fall guy, and the "last hired, first fired" propensity familiar to blacks and Hispanics. It said: Clinton’s chances of winning the nomination may rise or fall on the Latino turn-out in the upcoming Texas primary. What effect Solis Doyle’s resignation will have on Hispanic voters remains to be seen. But it cannot help.

There is no specific charge made, but it can be read between the lines. Or at least some may read it that way. If there's another shoe to drop, or if this becomes a word of mouth charge, it could hurt.

And with a political mind like Bill Clinton around, you have to figure that the campaign considered this possible fallout. So taking the risk must have seen better than trying to ride it out. That's not a good sign for the Clinton campaign in general. (Hat Tip to the Field for both the El Diario story and the demographics from SurveyUSA.)

Mo Mo

Momentum is a scary thing: it is powerful but it can turn. Still, the more it builds and the longer it goes on, the harder it is to stop.

Tuesday's USA TODAY will show results of the first national Gallup Poll to show Obama ahead of Hillary. It's 47% to 44%--just 3%, within the 5% margin of error. But the poll was conducted before Obama's weekend sweep of contests. And the poll is the third national poll this week to show Obama besting McCain (50%-46%), but it shows McCain over Clinton by one point.

One thing that momentum does is makes room for negative stories about the candidate who doesn't have it at the moment. It's not quite a week after Clinton got some significant states on Super Tuesday, but Obama's string of victories--and the margin of victory(including an error fixed Monday that now means Obama won every county in Washington state)--is having a major impact, after he came out of Super Tuesday with more delegates and states. So Clinton's problems are bigger news, and bad impressions are moving forward.

The New York Times story quoted in the post below is one example. Another is the slowly building questions about the Clintons' finances--a chilling flashback, at best. This piece reviews what's known and ends with this ominous suggestion concerning the mixing of Billary's money (after it was revealed that her $5 million loan to her campaign came not from her own account but their joint funds) : "In other words, money from Yucaipa and the interests it deals with - running the gamut from public employee pension funds to supermarket chains to the Dubai Investment Group - is directly benefiting Hillary Clinton, an incumbent politician charged with voting on issues crucially important to the profits of Yucaipa, its clients, partners and investors."

All this when Obama, who releases his tax returns as a matter of course, has gently asked Clinton to release hers, but she says she's not ready.

While the candidate without momentum becomes an easier target, what the critics say can also be instructive. On Sunday Frank Rich went after how the Clintons are conducting this campaign with charges of cynicism and racism (also quoted in a previous post.) This Paul Jenkins piece catalogues some of the more outrageous spin coming out of Hillary's mouth and the Clinton campaign. For example:

The spinning absurdity reached a paroxysm (at least so far) as Super Tuesday results started pouring in. Georgia, which Obama won by 36%, was irrelevant, the Clinton operation told us, because she hadn't campaigned there and Obama had a "consistently [...] wide poll lead" in the state. Left unsaid was the fact that both Clintons were in Georgia days before the primary and that Clinton was well ahead in the state just weeks before the February 5 contest.

It seemed like it couldn't get any worse, but then her campaign claimed that Clinton's Oklahoma win (the first of the evening for her) was important because it was the only state so far where both candidates had "competed fiercely." Oklahoma, as it happened, was the one state in which Obama had not campaigned (he was last there in March 2007, it seems), and one in which polling had showed he was consistently behind by 20 or 30%.

If Hillary was winning, these might just be quoted, instead of collected for disdain. But part of the point is that they do exist. Contrast this with what critics can possibly say about the Obama campaign. They can't accuse it of cynical manipulation or egregious distortions. Every campaign engages in some degree of spin, but the Obama campaign has been remarkably forthright and accurate, as reporters admit. Maybe this tells you something.

March On

Not in the department of counting chickens before they're hatched, but in a cautionary mode, a fairly devastating piece in the New York Times to be published Tuesday morning:

“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.

In the Potomac Primary states, polls have Obama so far ahead that it's making me queasy. It's been dangerous to him in some past contests because, I believe, some Obama voters stayed home figuring he would win easily, and Hillary got sympathy votes for being behind. For me, assuming he wins, Obama's margins tomorrow vs. the poll spread will tell me whether we're past this kind of reaction.

In the meantime, I've just looked at a couple of Washington Post.com videos about Obama appearances in Virginia and Maryland today that couldn't have been more on message if the Obama campaign had made them. The College Park Maryland appearance intercut interviews with a black woman and a black man--both past 30 or 40-- talking about change. She said she hadn't expected change to happen in her lifetime, until now. He said, "this is not a campaign for the presidency, this is a movement for the future of America."

Even the reporter for Hotline, who gave a crowd estimate of 18,000 at College Park, got the fever.

Moving On--Fast

For this Tuesday, the Baltimore Sun endorsed Obama today: Barack Obama... offers a more compelling vision for the country that he would lead. He wants to forge a new reality in Washington where consensus replaces confrontation. And he has shown a remarkable ability to enroll a diverse array of Americans in his cause, convincing a new generation that it too has a stake in Washington.That's why The Sun strongly endorses Mr. Obama as the Democratic nominee for president.

For the biggies in March, the El Paso Times endorsed Obama today: Of the two viable Democratic presidential candidates, Obama represents a fresh future rather than an inevitable harking back to the past -- what was a divisive and contentious past for many."

Last Thursday, the Dallas Morning News endorsed Obama: Mr. Obama is our choice because of his consistently solid judgment, poise under pressure and ability to campaign effectively without resorting to the divisive politics of the past.

Remember the Maine

This looked to some outside observers as a likely win for Hillary. It's in her Northeastern sphere of influence, Maine often replicates the New Hampshire winner, and it reputedly has a lot of typical Hillary voters: lower income, white, older. She was endorsed by the governor. Four polls showed she was ahead. And some felt this was a must-win as well.

But Barack Obama won the Maine caucuses today. Final results aren't in yet but it looks like the approximately 60-40 margin is holding, so not only is it a win, it's a landslide. One more BIG win for the weekend. (Props to this guy, a Mainer who predicted the victory and spread at Kos.) Turnout was reportedly heavy, despite snow storms.

So Hillary lost in her Northeastern stronghold, making it more likely that she'll go through the rest of this month without a victory, and that Obama will be storming into Ohio and Texas with a month's worth of momentum. If the next polls in those states show a big jump for Obama, the super-delegates who agree that Obama is the more electable candidate with the better chance of expanding the party and bringing in more downticket Democrats, may not wait until March 4 to start moving into his column, despite the stories today that Hillary's party establishment support is holding.

Also today, Hillary fired her campaign manager--usually not a great sign this deep into the campaign. But insiders told the press this "transition" was in the works for a long time. The Clinton camp made a big deal yesterday out of announcing they'd raised $10 million since Super Tuesday--a substantial sum-- but rumors of money troubles persist. Interestingly, the Obama campaign stopped announcing (or posting) their online fundraising total last week--when they had nearly $8 million pledged. I'm curious why, and what they do next.

News today also that John Edwards had a "secret" meeting with Hillary, ostensibly to discuss endorsement, and will have a no longer secret one with Obama tomorrow. Many of his upper level supporters have joined Obama. It's not clear what his endorsement would mean, except in terms of perceived momentum, but it might free up some more campaign talent. I'd be very surprised if he endorsed Hillary. Nobody knows what's being discussed in these meetings. Does he want to run for vice president again?

If the Obama momentum continues through March 4, then Maine may be remembered as the defining moment. Hillary has held off that momentum twice before when it seemed about to sink her candidacy, but can she do it in March and April? It seems less likely, but the Clintons have been at this for a long time. Besides which, the Obama campaign can't count its primaries before they're hatched. On to the Chesapeake.

A Bigoted Lie

Frank Rich's NY Times column today is very tough on the Clintons. He lays out the case for how, once the black vote started to turn towards Obama, the Clintons simply turned away from them, began using racial politics in courting white and especially Hispanic voters. This included, according to Rich, a bigoted lie.

Rich began the column by describing a televised event that few people paid any attention to but which he watched--the Hillary "national town hall" on the Hallmark channel that she promoted at the end of the last debate. He observed how carefully scripted it was, that it included few African Americans--and none among those asking the questions. Later in the column (with my emphasis):

"But the wholesale substitution of Hispanics for blacks on the Hallmark show is tainted by a creepy racial back story. Last month a Hispanic pollster employed by the Clinton campaign pitted the two groups against each other by telling The New Yorker that Hispanic voters have “not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates.” Mrs. Clinton then seconded the motion by telling Tim Russert in a debate that her pollster was “making a historical statement.”

It wasn’t an accurate statement, historical or otherwise. It was a lie, and a bigoted lie at that, given that it branded Hispanics, a group as heterogeneous as any other, as monolithic racists. As the columnist Gregory Rodriguez pointed out in The Los Angeles Times, all three black members of Congress in that city won in heavily Latino districts; black mayors as various as David Dinkins in New York in the 1980s and Ron Kirk in Dallas in the 1990s received more than 70 percent of the Hispanic vote. The real point of the Clinton campaign’s decision to sow misinformation and racial division, Mr. Rodriguez concluded, was to “undermine one of Obama’s central selling points, that he can build bridges and unite Americans of all types.”"

Knowing even before Super Tuesday that the remaining contests aren't likely to yield a majority for either candidate, the Clintons (Rich writes) cynically reversed her previous position on the primaries in Michigan and Florida, and will try to change the rules after the game was played in order to secure those delegates. The furor over that possibility is already building within the party--and I certainly find it an even more outrageous injustice than the super-delegate system. Dem chair Howard Dean is trying to forestall a party-rending battle over this. But, Rich concludes:

But does anyone seriously believe that Howard Dean can deter a Clinton combine so ruthless that it risked shredding three decades of mutual affection with black America to win a primary?

I have to say I've come to the same conclusion. That's why I'm afraid the campaigns in Ohio and Texas may get very, very ugly. Especially behind the scenes.

Sweep

That's the headline already, but it's more than Obama won every contest today--caucuses in Washington and Nebraska, primary in Louisiana, and I don't know what that was in the Virgin Islands. Once again it's the geographical sweep. Heavily African American vote in Louisiana, not so much in Nebraska and Washington. Obama won Washington despite both (women) Senators endorsing Hillary, though he was endorsed a few days ago by the (woman) Governor Gregoire.

And the size of each victory: more than 2 to 1 in Nebraska and Washington, by more than 20 points in Louisiana--and 90% in the V.I.s. Or as this report put it: Obama's winning margins ranged from substantial to crushing.

On Saturday Obama spoke in Maine to an audience of 6 to 7,000 (plus another 2,000 who couldn't fit), while Hillary spoke to about 1500, with 3 to 500 turned away. The Maine caucus is Sunday, an all-day affair.

Hillary and Obama also spoke to the big Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Virginia. Rachel Maddow on MSNBC thought it was her best speech of the campaign, but the crowd was heavily with Obama. Obama was introduced by Virgina Governor Tim Kaine who endorsed him. Virginia Senator Mark Warner was there, and I believe he's also endorsed Obama. Obama complimented Virginia Senator Jim Webb twice in his speech, though he has yet to endorse anyone and is considered to be more likely to support Hillary. (He's also considered an attractive v.p. for Obama.) The Virginia primary is on Tuesday, and the Survey USA poll (the most reliable for Super Tuesday) shows Obama with a big lead; also in Maryland which votes the same day, as does DC.

Saturday's result already puts Obama clearly in the lead in delegates won in contests, and even with the AP's projections that included super-delegates (who can change their mind anytime), he's very close, despite Hillary's nearly 2 to 1 margin from her inevitability phase.

Maine is Hillary's February firewall, though Obama supporters insist he'll win there. Her next prospect is Wisconsin, but that's doubtful. Her big state strategy puts it all on the line in Texas and Ohio. In fact, this report in a British newspaper suggests that if she wins those primaries, she would ask party elders to persuade Obama to step aside. The Obama campaign is saying they will stay in it through to the convention.

Polls say Hillary is ahead in Ohio and Texas, but Obama is poised to win 9 of the 10 contests between Super Tuesday and March 4, with tomorrow's caucus in Maine as the only one in which Hillary is given much of a chance. That gives him tremendous momentum, especially if his margins of victory continue to be so overwhelming. All of this sets up Ohio and Texas as the most intensely fought contests of the campaign.

And Sunday, the Cleveland Plain Dealer endorses Obama:

" Obama's frequent talk of hope strikes some people as naive. It leads others to question his toughness. But Obama understands something his critics do not: Change requires vision and optimism, shared sacrifice and mutual trust. Hope can sustain those elements; a presidency defined by political tactics cannot.

Hillary Clinton is an exceptionally bright and accomplished woman. Only a fool could dispute that...But in a campaign where history matters, she carries an inordinate amount of baggage. Who wants to relive the soap operas of the 1990s? "

Brain Science for Super-Delegates

The Conventional Wisdom narrative now is that Clinton and Obama are deadlocked, and the nomination may not be decided until the convention, which will put the party and the nominee in peril because the GOPer nominee--almost certainly John McCain--will have several months head start campaigning.

There is some substance to this analysis, and some problems with it. The substance is this: If Paul Kane of the Washington Post is right about the math, neither candidate can win enough delegates to secure the nomination in the primaries and caucuses to come. In that sense, it is a mathematical deadlock, assuming that both candidates get their usual share of the delegates in the contests between now and June.

If neither mathematically eliminates the other, and neither withdraws, then it's up to super-delegates and probably the convention, since the delegates belonging to Michigan and Florida may make the difference to a majority, and so the decision to seat them or not will determine the nominee.

Even as Super Tuesday votes were being counted, party chair Howard Dean was warning of this possibility. He is right to say it would be a disaster for the Democratic Party, and not just because the nominee would be playing catch-up against McCain. Some Democrats feel strongly that the time has passed that party insiders--the super-delegates--should name the nominee. Donna Brazile said if that happens she would quit the Democratic Party.

I am probably not alone in feeling just as strongly that seating Michigan and Florida delegates that reflect the outcome of their bogus primaries would be such a travesty that I would quit the Democratic Party. (I might still vote for the Democratic candidate in November, but not as a Democrat.) We had eight years of calamitous consequences thanks to the debacle of the 2000 election, and this is just as serious a travesty.

Both of these situations would be disastrous. The only other possibility I can think of--and perhaps Howard Dean was contemplating--is that one of the candidates would withdraw for the good of the party. Presumably it would be the candidate with the lesser number of pledged delegates.

As I said, the idea that Obama and Clinton are deadlocked itself has some problems. While it's true that at the moment they appear to be tied, there are more contests to come. It may be that what Super Tuesday showed is that Obama is moving up while Hillary is slipping down, and they happened to be even on that day. We'll get some evidence about that soon.

It's possible that the delegate count will wind up being very close between them by mid-March or the end of April. But it's also possible that it won't be--that there will be a clear leader.

So let's think this through now--especially you super-delegates. If there is a clear leader, isn't it likely to be Barack Obama? He is more likely to win the lion's share of delegates in the February caucuses and primaries, and he is likely to win close to half the delegates in Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, even if Clinton wins a few more in each state than he does. It is less likely that Clinton will have a substantial lead in delegates at that point.

While you are contemplating that, think about which candidate is more likely to win in November, and which candidate is likely to be better for the Democratic Party then and for the long term.

The answer is the same: Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton is divisive. The Republicans are praying that she is the nominee. They raise money on the very idea that she will be. They can't wait to run against her. The Republican Party is in disarray now. But there is one thing that can unite it: Hillary as the Democratic nominee.

Clinton and others criticized Obama for suggesting that in recent elections, the Democrats had 46% and the Republicans had 46%, and everybody fought for the remainder, and the winner can't govern. Now look at the polls--most specifically the latest Time survey: Clinton 46%, McCain 46%. (Obama got 48% to McCain's 41%.) Various polls over at least a year have shown Clinton's favorables and unfavorables have been about even.

Clinton is divisive within the party. Many commentators have said openly that her campaign has used race against Obama. They've also said openly that she uses the woman as victim image for electoral advantage. Right now her campaign is whipping up a frenzy over a tasteless analogy used by a newsperson to galvanize and solidify white feminist support that has been peeling off.

Obama on the other hand has appealed to black voters and young voters with his message of unity. His campaign is not divisive. It has brought together established and insurgent elements of the Democratic Party, and it has brought thousands of new participants and millions of new voters.

When Obama says that he will keep the votes of people who are voting for Hillary, but she won't get all the votes of people voting for him--who can really dispute this?

And what will happen to the voters Obama has energized and galvanized in what he calls a movement as well as a candidacy? If he is not the nominee, much of that energy and many of those voters will be lost, perhaps for a long time. It's not that African American voters and young voters will go to the polls to vote for McCain. It's more likely that those who haven't been going to the polls before this year, won't go in November.

And if the perception is that Hillary has won the nomination through arm-twisting deals and bogus delegates from Michigan and Florida--then many of those young voters in particular will be lost to the party and the process for years to come, perhaps forever.

Obama had demonstrated a profound ability to get support from Independents and Republicans. He is attracting rural voters in Red States. He is attracting young professionals who may be Republicans. He is even capable of being strongly pro-choice and attracting pro-life voters who agree with him in other important ways. No other Democrats had demonstrated the breadth and depth of the voting groups and voters he can attract.

The Bangor Daily News expresses this well in an editorial that echoes many others throughout the country:

"Though Sen. Clinton has worked with Republicans, she would be a polarizing president. Whether deserved or not, the Clintons -- the senator and former president -- incite many Republicans to savage opposition, a response that could impede her ability to govern. Sen. Obama, a fresh face who must present more details of his proposals for addressing health care, the economy, climate change and other issues, stands a much better chance of working for a new agenda to tackle new problems, and finding common ground with Republicans. These are important considerations for Democrats this weekend."

So if you're a super-delegate who cares about the Democratic Party and its future, who wants to win the presidency in November and a lot of congressional seats besides, as well as state and local offices, and if you really want the new Democratic President to be effective in governing-- I don't think it's brain science to see that you're much better off with Barack Obama as the party's nominee.

So what's a nervous super-delegate to do? I'm not suggesting that you subvert the democratic process. But you can participate in it. Clearly super-delegates who have endorsed a candidate plan to vote for him or her. More of them should find the right time to endorse Obama. More of them should make these arguments in their states, because these are persuasive arguments for those who care about this election and the future.

Beyond that, a protracted, ugly struggle that is all too synonymous with "politics" truly does look like a nightmare that could hand the presidency to John McCain, who at the moment seems to be running to the Rabid Right of G.W. Bush. If he is that kind of President, kiss the country goodbye. And remember, Hillary is at best a 50%+1 candidate. It won't take much to erase the +1.

But of course it may not turn out to be that messy. While I have little confidence anymore in the honor of the Clintons, perhaps some honorable solution will be found. In the meantime, work the hope--get Barack Obama so many delegates that he can't be denied.

Thankless Thursday

Romney is out. The Rabid Right is foaming at the mouth.

As I suspected, the Clinton campaign was playing possum. Their staffers aren't going without pay, the campaign has raised over $6 million in the past few days with new donors (while Obama has raised over 7.5 million) and the idea that all her former donors have maxed out is not likely to be true. Still, this guy thinks her lending that $5 million--which is apparently Bill's money, too--is going to come back to bite her.

Depressing story of the day: Paul Kane at the Washington Post maintains that it is all but impossible for either Hillary or Obama to win enough delegates in the upcoming primaries to secure the nomination. It will be up to the Super Delegates apparently. So everything we'll go through for the next several months is just go keep it close, and take control of the narrative. Maybe by then those Super Delegates will get super smart, and realize that THE REPUBLICANS CAN'T WAIT TO RUN AGAINST HILLARY, and that Obama is the only candidate WHO CAN KEEP THE BASE AND EXPAND THE PARTY.