It's the Marge Simpson paradox:

"They're both so nice, I want them both to win."

You should have just stuck with Inkblot.
Then you wouldn't feel the remorse you feel right now.

Well, she was saved from humiliation, huzzah. Hardly a good night for her, though--if Georgia or Alabama or Minnesota or Colorado or Idaho were major media markets we'd be hearing what a crushing defeat she suffered.

KD: I can only say what's inside my own head, rational or irrational as it might be.

Which is what pundits do. What's refreshing is Mr. Drum's recognition of what he's doing.

I found myself thinking the same way. I broke for Obama at the last minute but, somehow, didn't want it to be overwhelmingly decisive. I didn't think of it as buyer's remorse, though, just as an indication of my uncertainty.

Obama came out better than expectations. Most folks were expecting Clinton to win more delegates and Obama was hoping that she wouldn't get so many that he would get buried. Instead, Obama managed to break even, or slightly better. They both are getting good at this campaigning thing, thanks to this intense competition. Shouldbe good for general election.

Jeez, why all the compassion for Hillary? She'd squash you all like a bug if she thought it'd advance her march to the White House.

Hillary's a big girl. Don't be patriarchal. This is not fifth-grade class president.

For a nebulous, rorschach candidate like Obama, momentum has been just about everything in propelling his candidacy. With momentum, his speeches seem inspiring and uplifting beyond any real merit because that's the way the delusion of crowds works -- nothing is more subjective than "crowd energy", and the perception of a surge in popular feeling is absolutely key to sustaining that.

If you take away that momentum from Obama, one wonders what he really has left to win further fights. His basic demographics are not really good. And somehow, talking up all his money is not exactly going to do the trick, I don't think. He's effectively had all the money he might ever need, and has not been able to turn it into a decisive win in popular votes.

I think that we are going to see the gradual deflation of the Obama bubble. Couldn't happen at a better time.

87% of black in Georgia voted for Obama (blacks make up 52% of electorate); 82% of blacks in Alabama (blacks make up 51% of electorate). In Illinois, 94% of blacks voted for him.

Instead, Yahoo news has a headline on how women voters are boosting Hillary. Give me a break.

I had the exact opposite reaction: I was surprised at how bitter I felt about Clinton's victories. I don't want the pro-war candidate to win.

I'm getting excited about the possibility of finally getting to vote for someone who wasn't part of that sickening group of people that were either too stupid to know the war was a bad idea or worse, too craven to not vote for it anyway.

BTW, Inkblot is too young to be president, so a vote for Inkblot is a wasted vote.

frankly0, leave the spin to the pros, ok? clearly obama is doing just fine, as is clinton.

If (as you say) clinton can't handily beat an opponent with nothing but vapid momentum, then she's a pretty crappy candidate eh?

Kevin, last night was a little crazy, but after a a decent nights sleep I have a few thoughts.......
Obama and Hillary did well. Obama was able to pick up the caucus states and Hillary carried all of the big states. There are problems in yesterdays returns for both camps.
Obama won states that will not be the democrats column on November 4, 2008. He lost several states that had huge rally crowds, and by most accounts he is still about 100 votes behind Hillary . Obama has gotta be happy that his MO is still very strong and he has got most the talking heads on his side. Make no mistake he is a step behind her and he can definitely win this.
Hillary had to have been biting her nails last night, but in the end, she took the big ones, and her latino, blue collar democrat and women voters stuck by her. She will have to keep her lead to keep her super-delegates. Bill is going to have to mind his business and both of them are going to have to campaign hard for Texas and Wisconsin, with a few smaller states to keep her hand in. She will have to fight for the FL and MI delegates (about 185 for her vs 80 for him) to win the nomination.
Your buyers remorse could be the start of something for her, don't say it too loud, it might be catching.............

What I've learned from reading Kevin and comments here is that for all of the stuff about "Obamamania", pro-Hillary sentiment is about as irrational as it gets and arguments for her candidacy are based mostly on emotion and/or delusion. If Hillary gets the nomination, the Democratic party will continue to be the tepid, corporate-enabling, GOP-emulating piece of crap it's been since at least the Reagan years. Bowing to Bush's war should have made Hillary unelectable. Except too many Democrats are as full of shit as she is...

My wife had the same reaction - voted Obama, rooted for Clinton.

Don't buy the spin, Kevin! It's a nominating campaign and it's all about the delegates! Think how Obama did after being so far down in the polls just a few weeks ago. You had unrealistic expectations and perhaps thought that your switch to Obama was somehow prescient of so many other like-minded voters.

It is a close race. Obama is (very slightly) winning and has money, the calendar, and momentum on his side. I agree w/ the other voters that your sympathy for Hillary is off-putting. Please don't become the characticure of a white male liberal with gender guilt!

My own reaction was quite similar. I decided on Monday that I would vote for Obama, but I found myself nearly rooting for Hillary last night. Certainly odd.

Bob, women are a much bigger demographic than AA's. And they vote in huge numbers for the democrats. That's why Yahoo is trumpeting this statistic. Also, although Illinois is a democratic state, it's unlikely that Georgia or Alabama will be, in the general.

Kevin, poor thing, take a couple of aspirin, take a walk, and relax. This thing isn't over by a long shot.

I hate to say this, but I'm getting bored with Obama's speeches, even though they are uplifting and inspiring and are meant to spur the masses into action. Which brings me to the same conclusion as Kevin: my poor brain is also a devious little lump of protoplasm. That,and I'm also old and lazy.

It's not odd to root for Hillary. Most Democrats have spent the better part of 16 years defending her. It's a testimony to the power of Obama's candidacy that in the past month so many have overcome that habit in the voting booth.

My rooting instincts are confused too, but at this point I'm starting to just wish it wouldn't go all the way to the convention. I can just see the MSM narrative shifting to that beloved old standby "Democrats are split." And don't think the chatterers won't be indulging every chance to give homage to Saint McCain.

It's kind of a waste of a good candidate if Hillary Clinton is never elected. That's the flukey thing about Obama's candidacy- it's really as if he's stepping out of turn. If we had to form a line, Hillary and Bill in the White House again, and before they're each at greater risk of developing age-related health/mental problems, seems like a great idea.

Obama is also more likely to get elected as years pass, and the country gets less racist, too.

*

If (as you say) clinton can't handily beat an opponent with nothing but vapid momentum, then she's a pretty crappy candidate eh?

Obama isn't just an opponent with vapid momentum. He combines vapid momentum with uncritical praise from all manner of media sources and unrelenting criticism from those same sources of Hillary.

Put it all together, and you get someone who can do well in a Democratic nomination process -- until it's clear that he can't get past a ceiling in support. Then, having peaked, he's most likely going to find his way down.

Obviously you can spin it any way you want. Yes it looked like Obama had closed the gap in places like CA and MA, but then you look at the vote composition and it makes sense. Hillary destroyed Obama in CA among Latinos by a 70-30 margin and they make up almost a third of the voters.

In MA, Obama actually beat Hillary in the city of Boston and in the "wine" towns like Brookline, Newton, and Cambridge, but the rest of the state is very blue collar and Hillary dominated in towns like Worcester, Lowell, Springfield, and New Bedford. Obama just didn't have the appeal or the organization to get votes in those areas - the endorsements of people like Ted, Kerry, and Deval Patrick helped him around Boston but that's it.

My take is that given that Hillary had 20+ point margins in many of these states just a few weeks ago and Obama basically fought her to a draw is a great thing. But I agree, the PR effect of being able to "pick off" a key Clinton state like CA would have been a big boost for Obama.

Inkblot is too young to be president,

Cat years?

Frankly, oh gawd am I bored by this redundant, masturbatory spew...

I'm a HRC voter from Santa Monica who will happily vote for the Democratic nominee come November. Whoever we nominate.

That said, in the run-up to Super Tuesday, I'm starting to get really pissed with BO's increasingly pious and sanctimonious supporters who say they'll vote 3rd party (even Rep) if he doesn't get the nomination. (That includes you, Mrs. Obama.)

Didn't the 2000 election and Bush's 8 years of pain and suffering teach us that when it's all said and done, America is better off with a Democrat in the White House?

Democrats don't care who wins. What is amazing is the amount of Dems that voted compared to Repubs.

What does that show?

frankly0 - Funny i knew i'd have to face the "it's a big media conspiracy" argument.

If you actually think you're objective here, you're not. Both candidates are very very strong - just accept that. The media does love obama, because he knows how to work the media, because he's a really good candidate. You might not understand the man's presidency, but that doesn't mean he's empty. Go spend some time reading policy papers, please.

They are both historic characters. Both have their flaws. Hillary voted for the war. Obama has painted himself into a corner on health care. They should run on the same ticket with the Presidential Candidate pledging to drop out after the first term.

If they lose, under president McCain the nation will finally come face to face with the full spectrum of GOP incompetence and mismanagement. As someone mentioned before we have'nt hit the bottom yet. The next president whoever it may be is going to have a rough, rough time dealing with Mr. Bush's incompetence.

I think a lot of Dems haven't thought this decision through well enough, because the mainstream media, including all the talking heads, have been pushing Obama so hard. Hillary's support is really almost grassroots, because of the way the media goes after her.

That may be why some people are feeling buyers' remorse about Obama. Hillary is a good candidate, and although people haven't been having all the conversations about her and Obama they should have been having all along, the reasons for voting for her come peeking through in the end, when you have to make a decision about who to vote for.

David68, Obama won Boston because he got the black vote.

I'm a 27-year-old woman living in Brooklyn and I've been a lone Hillary supporter for months, going as far as volunteering for her. In the past month I've received several emails from some of my more disaffected/disinterested friends and have been floored by my generation's enthusiasm about him, to the point that I walked in not knowing who I'd vote for and walked out having voted (delegates and all) for Obama. I feel good about it - I think my generation's enthusiasm about Obama has merit that is worth paying attention to. Who else is going to step up and fill the government jobs to put all of these exciting new proposals into place?

Disappointed?

Two weeks ago the Clinton campaign thought this would be the day Obama dropped out. His own campaign's goal was to get within one hundred delegates. He gained as much as fifteen to twenty points in six or seven states in a matter of days.

Think about having this man go out and campaign for us against McCain.

Dear Hillary supporters, please consider this: our goal is a Democratic President. Obama and Clinton aren't all that different in policies, intentions and so on. They are both acceptable Democrats, better than acceptable, in fact.

But one has an awesome ground game, media support, the gift of being able to attract new voters and independents, doesn't inspire the rightwing turnout and has coat tails to help red state and purple state races.

The other candidate doesn't have any of these advantages. What's more the "advantages" she has are illusory. Yes, she is a strong woman, but no she cannot go out and fight the rightwing machine for us. She can't because the media hates her and helps the smear machine. There is no surge of woman voters flocking to her except within the Democratic party and those women will vote Democratic no matter what. Her years in politics might (might) make her a better President but they don't make her a better candidate: she has too much negative name recognition (48% disapproval).

We are at the point now when we need to stop talking about who would be the best President and start talking about who might actually get to BE President.

Clinton brings no advantages and too many liabilities to the campaign. Obama is highly electable. How does it serve us to insist on supporting the weakest candidate when the strongest one is a more than adequate alternative?

After all the primaries are not a process of choosing a President. We are choosing a CANDIDATE. Nor are the primaries the process whereby you swear undying allegaence to the choice that rings your bell and I swear undying allegience to the choice that rings mine. The primaries are a process whereby we narrow down the choices to those who satisfy the base (both do this) and then get over our own partisanship toward our favortie to pick the one that can get the votes of people outside the base so that we can win the election.

The goal is not for me to get my choice in the primaries or for you to get yours. The goal is to get a good Democrat into the Presidency.

> UPDATE: Armando also thinks that last night
> ended Obama's momentum and pushed the race in
> Hillary's direction.

Armando has completely destroyed Jeryln's blog with his shilling for Clinton, so I don't think his analysis can be trusted. In fact I don't think his analysis can even be trusted in the partisan-but-reality-based sense anymore: he says anything, twists any fact, and threatens to ban anyone who disagrees to increase the spin for Clinton.

Cranky

Thanks, Kevin. I felt the same way. Before an election, one always gets wrapped up in one's own hopes.

But folks, Obama's campaign is claiming to have won more delegates last night. I'm not hearing that claim out of the Clinton campaign this morning, and I think they'd be claiming it if they thought they could.

So Obama had more pledged delegates going into this. He won more last night. He's going to win a bunch more this coming weekend, and the week after that looks good too. Once you get past Zogby and the exit polls, I would say that the mathematical narrative is not a bad narrative . . .

That said, I think Josh is right that this thing is going to come down to superdelegates. Who do they want to run with? Time to decide.

"(That includes you, Mrs. Obama.)"

More proof of what disingenuous hacks the Hillaryoids are. This is a total lie. (Not that it seems to matter to them.) Michelle Obama hesitated when she was asked whether she would WORK for Clinton if nominated. She unequivocally stated that she would support her. I know I won't work for Clinton, although I'll vote for Ms. Didn't Read the NIE and Voted for Bush's War if I have to. But all of my energy will go to helping down-ticket Dems because god knows they'll need it with the Clintons at the top of the ballot.

No matter how hard Obama, his campaign, and his supporters try to manage expectations, we just can't do it. Call it hubris and arrogance or call it irrational exuberance, I think a lot of Obama supporters feel like Obama ought to be trouncing Clinton and feel let down when he doesn't, even though in objective terms he's still well positioned to win the nomination (though certainly not guaranteed). The march from here is tactical. Everything going forward looks favorable for Obama except for Texas, Ohio (well maybe Ohio's not so bad), and Pennsylvania (of course those are BIG states...)

He'll need to do what he couldn't do on super Tuesday to put this away--ie, get a win in 2 out of 3 of those states. I think if he can do that, he'll be on his way. Hillary Clinton does not want to be in the position of Kentucky and Indiana being her firewall (come to think, Indiana borders Illinois and shares some media markets, and what seems to be the case so far is that Obama does well in the states ringing Illinois)

I thought Obama would do better in CA.

This talk of "winning" states in Tuesday's Democratic primary is somewhat stupid. The delegates are alloted (roughly) proportionately, and Obama got very slightly more.

I'm an Obama supporter and I was very pleased with the outcome. Sure, it would have been nice to make it a tougher fight in California or New Jersey, but Clinton held a significant lead in the majority of the polls of both those states before Tuesday, despite what some of the polls (Zogby??) said.

But if you would have told me that Obama would win 14 of the 25 states in play, AND win more delegates, I'd have said that would be a tremendous victory.

Now if Obama would have won California, New Jersey, or Massachusetts, it would have been a major victory for Obama and a tough loss for Clinton.

Clinton did win the popular vote, but only by a mere 60,000 votes out of 14.5 million cast, that's roughly .4% (49.8 to 49.2), incredibly close....

But I don't see how anyone can spin Tuesday as a Clinton victory. I'd say it's a very close split decision victory for Obama (if we're using a boxing metaphor), or at worst a draw.

Now all the major news outlets are reporting Obama won more delegates last night... Bottom line:

OBAMA WON SUPER TUESDAY

How is that a "disappointment"? He made up insurmountable leads in the big states to make them at least close and he did it without sacrificing one single vote in the smaller states he won.

OBAMA WON SUPER TUESDAY

He won the most states and the most delegates. Are you disappointed because he didn't sweep? Who thought that was even possible? Hillary was up 30 points in some of these places just last month.

I have heard this from several people, so I don't think you are alone. I think it comes from defending the Clintons for so long, esp. from the Media, that we loth to see the Chris Matthews say,"I told you so!"

I really wish I could see a state-by-state breakdown of early v. same-day voter results. 4 states Clinton won (Arizona, California, Tennessee and especially Oklahoma) had Edwards votes of 4% and up, a clear indication that a lot of people voted there before he dropped out. One has to wonder how much the Obama surge showed up in primary day voting in those states, where the Edwards voters would have gone, and if any early Clinton voters had buyer's remorse somewhere along the line.

Sorry, I found the article you posted to be oddly illogical and riddled with assertions which have little evidenciary support. Just look at the states to come. Next up is Louisiana. It's not a stretch so say Obama is gonna win that one. On the same day comes Washington, Nebraska, and the Virgin Islands. Wash and Neb are caucus states - Obama's done pretty good with that format.

After that comes Maine which is anyone's guess, but I'm betting Hillary.

Then comes DC, Maryland, and Virginia which I think all go Obama. Followed by Hawaii and Wisconsin. Two more wild cards.

In all likelihood, at the end of February, we'll be exactly where we are right now - a virtual tie. 447 delegates to go in Feb and it's not unreasonable, given the states involved, to suggest that Obama wins a majority. That doesn't sound like a fading candidacy to me.

But you know, punditry always suffers when odd little annoyances like Facts get in the way.

The only real "bad" outcome here is that the popular vote/delegates goes one way and the superdelegates go another. That will create a lot of bad blood among democrats and give the republicans and media a big hammer to whack democrats with.

Even though it's not exactly a "balanced" ticket, i left super tuesday feeling much more enthusiastic about clinton/obama 08.

So Obama had more pledged delegates going into this. He won more last night. He's going to win a bunch more this coming weekend, and the week after that looks good too. Once you get past Zogby and the exit polls, I would say that the mathematical narrative is not a bad narrative

This possible fact might be more impressive if Obama had actually won the popular vote. According to what Kevin posted earlier, Clinton won that vote, 49-48%.

So which is more important, the popular vote, or the pledged delegates, determined by mostly arcane and arbitrary rules? I'm going with the popular vote.

I think Kevin had a taste of the feeling that motivates a large portion of Hillary supporters (excluding the 65+ year old whites and latinos, that's a whole different kettle of fish). I think Hillary voters are supporting her out of sympathy and pity. Not a great way to pick a president, but it is proving to be a very powerful force.

Whenever it looks like Obama is surging, going into New Hampshire and Feb 5th, many democrats start feeling sorry for Hillary and don't want to see her lose.

Obama had better be extremely careful not to make the slightest show of one-upping Hillary.

Two more quick points:

1. Talk of "winning" states is important because for the most part the electorate is politically uneducated. PERCEPTION MATTERS. So yeah, maybe in the delegate count it doesn't matter much, but winners win in politics.

2. The talk about Obama not being able to win Latinos is silly. They said the same thing about women. Guess what? He closed the gender gap substantially. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23006750/

Not doing great with Latinos yesterday doesn't mean he won't do great with Latinos tomorrow. Just means he's got his work cut out for him.

Actually, a great deal was made clear by yesterday's vote:

The Democratic ticket will include both Obama and Clinton.

Clinton proved that she is not the paper tiger Obamanians thought she might be; she is not a spent force, and her persona and her vision of governance are not going away.

Obama showed that he is not secondary to Clinton in any way; he can match her in any statistical measure. And as we already knew, Clinton without Obama is about as exciting to Dems as McCain is to the Republicans.

A ticket without both Clinton and Obama on it is doomed.

The only question now is who will be at the top.

I'm starting to get really pissed with BO's increasingly pious and sanctimonious supporters who say they'll vote 3rd party (even Rep) if he doesn't get the nomination.

First I've heard of this. Any articles you can point me to?

Purely unscientific, but reading the blogs, I see a lot more Obama voters who say they'll support Clinton than the other way around.

In any case, I'm confident the base will rally around the eventual nominee whoever it is -- assuming the more paranoid members of each side can keep their eyes on the prize and stop the quadrennial tradition of the circular firing squad.

Kevin would have to confirm, but I believe Inkblot is old enough in cat years.

brucds,

If Hillary gets the nomination, the Democratic party will continue to be the tepid, corporate-enabling, GOP-emulating piece of crap it's been since at least the Reagan years

You imply that Barack would be different. The same real powers supporting Hillary are also supporting Barack. A change of politicians will make no difference.

Did you say that OBAMA WON SUPER TUESDAY ?

Really ? HE WON SUPER TUESDAY ?

How could he possibly have managed to pull up 20-odd points in a few weeks to WIN SUPER TUESDAY when we have a political genius like "Frankly O" here endlessly repeating the mantra that he's an empty suit ? (I've started creeping to my computer in the dead of night and reading those "Frankly O" comments when I've got insomnia. Works really well.)

There is one thing about the Obama/Hillary campaigns that I do like. When they try to go negative on each other it seems to backfire by creating cross-sympathies!

Objectively, as an Obamafan, I think we're doing well in the quest for the nomination.

My disappointment is partly demographic. I wanted us to break out of the Bradley-Jackson boxes; I wanted us to reach Hispanics and the non-black working class. We're not really doing that yet, and losing CA marks the fact.

But we are doing better among women than we were. And white-black polarization is clearly not the storyline anymore.

It is a close race. Obama is (very slightly) winning and has money, the calendar, and momentum on his side. I agree w/ the other voters that your sympathy for Hillary is off-putting.

It is a close race, but it is Clinton who is winning. Only by excluding superdelegates can you claim that Obama is winning. You may not like the undemocratic nature of the superdelegate process, but their votes count just as much as delegates selected in the Obama-friendly (but short on democracy) caucuses. I'd say the momentum is most definitely on Clinton's side, after taking the glittering prize of California. The calendar is hardly more friendly to Obama, either, as the number of delegates awarded by caucus will begin to diminish, and the number of delegates awarded by primaries -- where he doesn't fare so well -- increases. Also, while February looks good for Obama, March and April don't.

A long hard slog doesn't favor insurgencies, because, by their very nature, such campaigns aren't kind to that ephemeral substance known as momentum.

Kevin, as usual, is exactly right.

If Chris Matthews and John Zogby had never been born, Obama would now be the prohibitive favorite for the Democratic nomination.

So Obama won more delegates and more states last night, but you agree with a Hillary supporter on a pro-Hillary site that Obama has lost the "Big Mo" because what? Losses in the big traditional Democratic states?

I also hit Talkleft for the Hillary spin, and hit Sully for the the Obama hype just like many of your readers. It's not confusion you're feeling, just the fact that this thing isn't decided yet. It's still a race.

The only thing you should be able to pull outa that muddled noggin of yours is that you are far more susceptible to media narratives and spin than you care to admit.

Me? I'm looking forward to the fact that my state (Washington) has a caucus this Saturday that will actually matter one way or the other. I like both candidates, and will have a blast at my caucus site.

In the horserace sense, Hillary is several lengths ahead, and the finish line isn't that far away. Possibly Obama's velocity is a bit higher, but cathing up still seems unlikely.

I find myself thinking, that the only decent resolution to this split, is to have them both on the same ticket. Otherwise we are going to have on the on hand a large chunk of women who feel cheated, or if it breaks the other way, a large group of black, and younger voters who feel cheated.

Can someone reboot Swan? He's in a continuous "not the right time for a black man" loop.

[He has been moderated in the past and is on the verge of being moderated again.]

"A change of politicians will make no difference."

That's Obama's message...he has no more illusions than you do and isn't selling any. That's why his message is directed to his supporters to get involved in efforts to change the system and don't assume that just electing him will work some magic, because it won't. The difference between electing Obama who in his soul still sees the world as a community organizer and Hillary who was a corporate lawyer and now functions as a standard Dem political hack who'll "work the sysem for us."

"So which is more important, the popular vote, or the pledged delegates, determined by mostly arcane and arbitrary rules? I'm going with the popular vote."

Have you learned nothing from 2000??

Now, seriously, the popular vote is important, and arguably SHOULD be the real measure of whether a candidate wins or loses, but even there it was Hillary 49.7%, Obama 49.3%....hardly a definitive victory for Clinton.

Now if you look at Tuesday and determine the winner by the way victory truly is measured (i.e. DELEGATES), Obama wins by a similar small margin.

Wow, only a pessimist would spin Super Tuesday as a disappointment for Obama. He came from 13 points down in Connecticut the day of the South Carolina primary to win the state. He made substantial gains with grassroots support in blue states that the awesome Clinton machine has worked for years.

You had to be a little breathless to buy Zogby's numbers; all the soundings from California pointed to a Hillary win: the default-candidate vote, the absentee vote, the women's vote, the Latino vote, the I'm-going-to-vote-for-Hillary-because-Jack-Nicholson-told-me-to vote, Obama's ground game in California, etc., etc. Obama was going to lose California; what's amazing is that he did as well as he did. It's all been up, up, up for Obama, and he still has the wind at his back.

Super Tuesday also reiterated the distaste for Hillary Clinton in red states telegraphed by the early endorsements for Obama by red state politicians. Who here wants to argue that New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, or California will go to McCain in the general?

Cheer up!

Jasper - You're right that March doesn't look as favorable but remember very recent history. South Carolina didn't look favorable on Jan 1 and Obama won going away. A lot can change in a month, especially when you win.

That's why I say Obama still has the momentum. He won states he was losing as recently as 3-5 days ago. And while Clinton got the shiny prize of Cali, she was supposed to win there, as well as NY, NJ, Mass, etc. Winning states you're supposed to win doesn't add to your momentum - it just ensures you don't lose whatever momentum you have ongoing.

Obama won big yesterday because he essentially made the loss of those big states irrelevant.

A ticket without both Clinton and Obama on it is doomed. The only question now is who will be at the top. -lampwick

I think you nailed it perfectly. That greatly reduces the possibility of either camp staying home for the general election. I think this is the DLC's plan. There had to have been an important sitdown that happened after the South Carolina primary with the negative campaigning where Edwards agreed to drop out and Obama/Hillary agreed to be civil.

Nisaco: " I think my generation's enthusiasm about Obama has merit that is worth paying attention to."

I agree. In the college town I live in, the energy from your generation's enthusiasm for Obama has been electric. I think last night was a big win for Obama. Yes, HRC won big states, but wow, MN? In my wine-sipping precinct, the vote was 330 votes for Obama, 105 votes for Clinton (75%-25%). And I was happy to cast a vote for Obama for the under 30's who are going to inherit this earth.

Obama's momentum was stopped last night??? Oh, give me a break. He came from behind and ended up with more delegates. He did better than anyone could expect.

Over the next month we will see some interesting dynamics from the candidates: Obama is going to have to reach out to the blue-collar Dems. He's going to have to address the charge that he is just hot-air & inspirational speaking. Clinton is going to need to go beyond the traditional Dem strongholds: Her strength is there because because they are loyal and because they are slower to adopt new ideas. But the new idea is Obama, and Clinton is going to see her current base erode gradually slip away as the blue-collar Dems realize its okay to go with Obama.

brucds,
You keep yammering and yammering and yammering about how Clinton did not read the NIE.

So I presume you must have? And that you based your decision to not vote the President the authority to go to war on the overwhelming evidence in that document that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Your comments are rude and serve only to turn fence-sitters further away from Obama.

I see Meyerson's point, but the variable we can't account for is what the impact would be in Ohio and even in Texas if Obama does run off several wins in a row beforehand--does "momentum" begin to work for him, even though it hasn't been much of a factor in the race to this point?

There is no Obama-Clinton ticket possibility. They have anti-thetical marketing. Hillary stands for years in Washington. Obama is the outsider campaigning against the establishment. I don't see him sacrificing that ideal if he loses this thing and I don't see Hillary's ego permitting her to be VP.

Same here. I voted for Obama, but rooted for Hillary. Two good candidates, but I decided that he had the edge because she will never get a break from the media. She still would win, I believe, because the general population doesn't listen to the political pundits like we do. However, the moderate Republicans will not be able to support her in Congress while they might get away with exhibiting some rational behavior if Obama is president. I think that if everything else were equal, she'd make a better executive, but everything else isn't equal.

I do believe that she will have to offer the VP slot to her opponent, if she gets the nomination. I don't think that he will need to or that he would be able to do so. OTOH, we know that Hillary has got a proven track record of forgiveness....

I really wanted to see Hillary stay out of the race, because I hated the prospect of hearing her getting kicked around again.

Yes- let's do have another sympathy vote for Hillary. It's hard to say good-bye to old friends. That's why we have term limits. Exactly why Hillary's run is a bad idea. People can't separate what they feel and think about her apart from their past roll as President and First Lady. The very set up is corrupting to the democratic process. Yikes Kevin.

Oh, and by the way - the media is beginning to ask whether Hillary is self funding? Wolfson won't say. Sure. If yes, with what money? How much has Bill made inthe last 8 years? Doing what?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/A_question_from_Halperin.html#comments

So I presume you must have? And that you based your decision to not vote the President the authority to go to war on the overwhelming evidence in that document that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction.

Your comments are rude and serve only to turn fence-sitters further away from Obama.

Posted by: optical weenie on February 6, 2008 at 11:55 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, but this comment is flatly unintelligent. HRC voted for the Iraq resolution to appear strong - she triangulated and it backfired. This IS a relevant consideration for voters - no matter how much HRC kool-aid you've drank.

My view is HRC is great for domestic policy but would be an unmitigated foreign policy disaster. I could be wrong - but based on what we've seen, she's hawkish and more pro-war than I'm comfortable with. And yeah, not reading the NIE, voting for Iraq, voting for the Iran resolution, etc - all factor into my decision.

I think it comes from defending the Clintons for so long, esp. from the Media, that we loth to see the Chris Matthews say,"I told you so!"

This suggests one problem with a long primary struggle. For me, the Reagan/Pro-Choice distortions severely damaged my Clinton Defense Mechanism. I would support Hillary in the general but with the way the Clintons burn through political capital, our C.D.M.s will need to be at full strength just to get a few progressive changes.

Kevin should be forced to write that post again. What incoherent babble. Although to be fair, it was that kind of night.
Whatever candidate you're for (unless it's Romney,) last night left you feeling like

...yay?

Super Tuesday was enough of a wash that it almost gives the campaign a new start, meaning that this is the first election in a long time where the later primaries could be more decisive than the earlier primaries.

Will the DNS let Florida and Michigan vote again?

J Bean --

Why do you think "moderate Republicans" would have more difficulty working with Hillary Clinton than with Obama? Her record in the senate indicates otherwise.

I just can't get behind the "new" conventional wisdom that the longer this goes on, the better for Obama. I understand the point, but I don't see Obama cutting into Clinton's led enough to make the difference. At some point, Obama runs out of possible states to win. If he had won Massachusetts, New Jersey, or California...states that supposedly he had caught up to Clinton, it'd be a different story. But right now, I agree with Kevin. It feels like he caught close, damn close, but just missed and now there's not enough room to make it up and ALSO get some distance between himself and Clinton. I know in the end iIt will still be close, but close doesn't count, and I'm thinking the nomination goes to Clinton....the "good 'ol boy", the Dem whose "turn it is".

DNC, I meant.

My girlfriend says Hillary will win on the Latino vote.

Look at California, race IS coming into play.

The kind of charge Hillary got from results yesterday will be good for her internet fundraising, mark my words ('yeah, we can do it, we're underdogs' - that's a message that brings money).

Conversely, Obama's results will not drown him in money ('hey, I thought we already had this wrapped up' - a shadow of frustration, does not open the wallet as wide).

So don't make too much of the Jan. cash disparity.

Quinn - You may very well be right, but not for the reasons you identify. Obama can win the following states in February:

Louisiana
Virginia
DC
Maryland
Nebraska
Washington
Maine

These states are toss ups or unknowns:

Hawaii
Wisconsin

I don't see any clear wins on the rest of the Feb calender for Clinton. If Obama sweeps the rest of Feb, this thing is over.

My point being (aside from glue sniffing predictions) is that there are plenty of states left that he can win. He may not win them. He may not get over the hump. But he has an excellent shot and a lot will be determined by how he gets his message out and how strong his ground game is.

That's why I say Obama still has the momentum. He won states he was losing as recently as 3-5 days ago. And while Clinton got the shiny prize of Cali, she was supposed to win there, as well as NY, NJ, Mass, etc.

A number of polls had Obama winning California. He lost. Decisively. A number of polls had things very close, too, in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Again, Obama suffered double digit losses in these Democratic heartlands. I think if he had won the states he did last night, and lost narrowly in those large Northeastern states and California, he'd be sailing to the nomination.

Obama won big yesterday because he essentially made the loss of those big states irrelevant.

Obama didn't win big yesterday. He stayed alive because of his ability to fill smaller state caucuses with his high energy political insurgents. He didn't do so well in those mass consumer marketing phenomena known as primaries. I still don't know if he's yet managed to take his first "win" among white voters in a primary outside of his home state. Not a great sign if your goal is beating Republicans in November. Oh, and his Big Liberal Establishment endorsements turned out to be incredibly lame, just as I thought. Contemporary voters don't let their betters tell them who to vote for.

I actually think Obama has momentum now. He did better in some states than others. Next week he has three friendly states coming up that he can win which should lead to some positive movement on his part - LA, WA and NE. I've been hearing that a big difference in the voting was the early absentee votes that were sent for Clinton before Obama started to catch fire. This is a long and fun race. It's exciting to see a good race of great candidates rather than the duds that we had in 2004 which came down to a contest of mediocrity.

"brucds,
You keep yammering and yammering and yammering about how Clinton did not read the NIE.

So I presume you must have?"

I knew from reading extensively the news that was available at the time that the Iraq war was unnecessary, totally hyped and a potential disaster being ginned up by Bush and the neo-cons. Hillary Clinton - and the rest of them in Congress who fell in line - did their country the ultimate disservice. If you think that's "rude" of me, what the hell do you call this damned war that Clinton enabled ?

And as for "rudeness" the outright lies - like the bit about Michelle Obama supposedly refusing to support the '08 Dem nominee I read abouve - and the hysterical venom sputtering out of NOW are about as "rude" as it gets. The Clinton camp increasingly disgusts me, and I went into this thing with no hard feelings. They've reminded me just what a bad deal Clinton ("The Era of Big Government Is Over!") was for the Democrats as a party. At least Hillary hasn't presided over any executions of mentally disabled people in her zeal for the presidency, unlike Big Dog.

PTate in MN: the new idea is Obama

Agreed, but what is the new idea? I think frankly0's characterization of Obama as the Rorschach candidate is right on target.

It's not that I'm a big Hillary fan. I, to my suprise, slightly favor her, but only because she's the lesser evil remaining. Obama, methinks, is a crap shoot. Maybe that's the way to go. Who knows, maybe we'll get lucky.

Obama: gives pretty speeches.

Hillary: doesn't track to the right quite as much as Obama.

Both are thoroughly bought and paid for faux Democrats. How can anyone have great enthusiasm for either of these candidates?

lampwick, no way. Obama supporters pony up after every primary or caucus regardless of outcome.

Obama loses California? Watch the donations pour in.

The kind of charge Hillary got from results yesterday will be good for her internet fundraising, mark my words ('yeah, we can do it, we're underdogs' - that's a message that brings money).

Conversely, Obama's results will not drown him in money ('hey, I thought we already had this wrapped up' - a shadow of frustration, does not open the wallet as wide).

So don't make too much of the Jan. cash disparity.

Posted by: lampwick on February 6, 2008 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINK

Whatever you're smoking, I gotta get some.

Obama won Boston because he got the black vote.

Obama won in places like Idaho and N. Dakota because the Democrats there are conservatives who hate of Hillary.

Clinton won in rural MA and NH because the Democrats of New England have a difficult time voting for an African American. She will win Maine.

The Missouri voting was interesting. Almost a split but a slight margin of victory for Obama. The prejudice against the Clintons seems to be greater than the prejudice against race. Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and N. Carolina will probably break for Obama because the Democrats are conservatives and Hillary haters. PA and OH could be like Missouri. Texas might be the deal maker. Will Texan bigots or will Texan Hillary haters prevail? Or will the yellow rose vote give Hillary the win?

I think to some extent left-liberals and hipsters have come to think of Obama as "their" candidate. So identity politics came into play there- people felt like Obama was who they were "supposed" to be voting for, but when they really think about it, they may not like the choice as much.

Also, the media really worked for a long time on telling people that "everyone" hates Hillary. It goes down to the level of detail of female talking heads suddenly turning their pleasant voices shrill when they talk about Hillary- it's noticeable. At any point, anybody could have looked at some polls online and noticed it's not true at all- Hillary has always been as popular as any other candidate for President. But I think people heard the lines so often they started to believe them, and not think it was just the media and a few angry white males who want to turn out country into a strange place none of us have ever been to before who hate Hillary. So part of why they voted for Barack is they felt comfortable that no one was going to like Hillary in the end anyway. Now they confront the Super Tuesday numbers and they realize that's not true. And it encourages them to turn to Hillary even more, because it shows them that all the talk about Hillary being unpopular really has been some kind of hanky panky going on.

[You have made the same point ad nauseum. If you have nothing new to add, would you please cease and desist? --Mod]

Enough with this "closing the gap" and "catching up"... Obama caught up last night. The gap is even. They are practically neck and neck in the delegate count.

Think of it as the Primary Season beginning right now with both of them at 0 and having to get to about 400 delegates... Then look at the states on the way... I think last night was HUGE for Obama. Hillary's only chance was to be about 100 delegates ahead today and she isn't...

Armando's post is silly--it reads like something Mark Penn could have written, spin with very little substance. The numbers behind his claims absolutely don't add up:

There are 596 delegates at stake between now and March 4th. That's more than Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania COMBINED.

By all accounts (including those of the Clinton camp) Obama should dominate the next two weeks. I'm guessing he goes into March 4th with a lead of 100 or more pledged delegates (if that seems like an overestimate, go look at the races state-by-state). Even the most optimistic Clinton prediction doesn't have her winning by THAT much on March 4th.

Obama won more states and more delegates and the popular vote was within half a percentage point. And the states in play were very friendly to her geographically and demographically. AND Obama was behind by double digits as recently as mid-January.

Sorry, but the efforts of Clinton supporters to spin this as anything other than a devastating loss are pathetic.

Someone pointed out that "Obama won states that will not be the democrats column on November 4, 2008."

This, I think, is very important.

What we have to focus on is making sure that we do not end up with President McCain in the White House.

In a race against McCain, Obama will lose much of the support he had last night from more conservative and libertarian Democrats--mainly white men. They will see McCain as a war hero, as someone who has been "tested"-- a patriot, and also someone independent enough to stand up to his own party. These voters can be persuaded that we can still win the war in Iraq--that pulling out would be a humiliating defeat for the U.S.

In addition to winning white men, McCain will take many older voters (say voters over 45 or 50). To them, McCain will seem more substantial--a man vs. Obama an untested boy. Finally, some blue-collar and lower-middle-class workers will vote for McCain the war hero.

Women would vote for Obama--voting against McCain's hawkiness. And he would have the African-American vote. I don't think Latinos would come out for him in large numbers.

In a race between McCain and Obama, I think McCain would take much of Obama's vote in the flyover states--and McCain could win.

In a race between HRC and McCain, Hillary takes the women, the traditional liberal Democrats, low-income voters, Hispanics and African Americans who, I think would come out for her in large numbers. She would also take many older voters.
I think Hillary would win.

Oh, and ten days ago--heck, TWO days ago, I'd have been absolutely incredulous at a prediction of an Obama delegate win, however small. He scored a big upset yesterday.

I'm pretty surprised that the Clinton camp is doing so well in the spin/expectations game this morning. Obama outperformed his polling averages in most places, while she underperformed hers. But somehow the fact that he underperformed compared to a tiny set of outlier polls that were clearly overly favorable to him means that his results were "disappointing?" Silly.

jjmckim, you're missing the dynamic: it's not out of sympathy and pity that people are supporting Hillary, it's out of spite. Voting for Hillary is an act of kicking every Hillary-hating pundit and loud-mouthed right-wing uncle in the teeth, akin to how people might vote for Bush to "get back at those coastal liberal elites!"

Jasper said:
A number of polls had Obama winning California. He lost. Decisively. A number of polls had things very close, too, in Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. Again, Obama suffered double digit losses in these Democratic heartlands. I think if he had won the states he did last night, and lost narrowly in those large Northeastern states and California, he'd be sailing to the nomination.

Yeah - Zogby had Obama ahead in a number of polls in California. The trend line though said Zogby was wrong (again). One poll had Obama ahead in Mass while EVERY OTHER said he would lose by a wide margin. EVERY poll had him losing by a lot in NY. And ONLY Zogby had him tied in NJ. NONE of those wins by Hillary were upsets. She should have won those states and she did.

But you're right - would have been better to lose by narrow margins in those states. Just as it would have been better for Hillary to lose by narrow margins in Georgia, Alabama, Illinois, etc.

Lets put it this way: 2 weeks ago, Obama was behind by 20 points in 9 of the 14 states he won last night. Lets not pretend that TX, OH, and PN are all going to stay with Clinton. We've seen a lot of states that initially looked solidly Clinton that have switched to Obama, and if he even splits the delegates in those states he'll win in the back of his delegate majority before hand.

Clinton really did need to take the lead last night, and President Obama is looking a lot more likely today than he did yesterday.

By all accounts (including those of the Clinton camp) Obama should dominate the next two weeks. I'm guessing he goes into March 4th with a lead of 100 or more pledged delegates (if that seems like an overestimate, go look at the races state-by-state).

Which would still give Clinton a decent overall lead headed into March, right? Or are you forgetting about superdelegates?

Unless something unforeseen happens (some kind of Bill eruption, perhaps?), it looks pretty unlikely that Hillary will be prevented from having a pretty substantial delegate lead a month from now. Again, it's hard to see how the Obamamentum can hold out so long. Already I sense that feeling of freshness and newness beginning to wane. And let's not forgot Rezko goes on trial soon. You only get to be the Exciting New Thing for so long.

Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky and N. Carolina will probably break for Obama because the Democrats are conservatives and Hillary haters.

Maryland's Democrats are conservative? News to us.

OTOH, I do know many progressives who are rabidly anti-Hillary.

Jasper -

Let's also not forget that SuperDelegates are a fickle bunch and tend to vote the way the people go (Bill Clinton's excluded). If Obama does sweep February, it will be very difficult for HRC to count on her SuperD count.

Also, now that McCain is the clear favorite for the other side, that's going to impact the races going forward. I can see it making a difference in states where the public believes Obama would more handily defeat McCain (Wash State, for ex).

Wisconsin is a wine track state? Ha.This state from north to south is as solidly blue collar as any state in this country. You just go right ahead and try to figure out where Wisconsinites will vote, and good luck to you. Remember that this state voted out Joseph McCarthy and replaced him with William Proxmire. Feingold is from Wisconsin, we have a long history of defying the "conventional" wisdom, whatever the heck that is.

"are you forgetting about superdelegates?"

Do you honestly think that the superdelegates will vote in a way that upsets the decision reached by the pledged delegates?

Please. Even a moron knows that if Barack wins in pledged delegates but Hilary is selected through the will of the superdelegates, the press will paint the result as so nefarious that McCain will win the general election in a landslide.

And by the way, I find it very hard to believe that the Clintons' spin is "well, Barack may win among the delegates selected by primary/caucus, but Hialry is going to win because of the powers-that-be in the Democratic party will override those results." That is beyond pathetic. It smacks of a banana republic to me.

I like Hilary, but if there is anything that would make me consider voting for McCain or a third party, it is the idea that she is counting on the party establishment to override the votes of Democratic primary/caucus voters.

Obama effectively tied with Clinton on Super Tuesday. He had to make up a big deficit in a great many states in a short time period. He didn't everywhere (NY, NJ, MA, CA, for instance), but did in enough other places to basically tie in popular vote and delegates.

The key question seems to me whether he can do even better from here on out when he and his operation have more time to devote to individual states. IA and SC indicate they can, NH and NV suggest otherwise. Of course those votes all came with Edwards still in the race, so we'll see.

Even the best case scenario for Obama that I can foresee has them going to the convention, with the superdelegates making the decision. If he can win most of the states here on out, win some big ones (TX, OH, PN) and some others decisively, he's got a good shot. Otherwise, Clinton probably wins with the superdelegates and possibly with her play for FL and MI.

maggie mahar: What we have to focus on is making sure that we do not end up with President McCain in the White House.

Good point. Whichever (faux) Democrat is nominated, they should take a tip from Eisenhower's 1952 campaign. The Dem candidate was Stevenson, but Ike ran a campaign against the outgoing Truman, who was horribly unpopular at the time.

Emphasize how bad Bush was, and how much McCain sucked up to him and his policies.

Just when I thought I'd heard every bit of nonsense possible coming from Camp Clinton, Mark Penn - yes, Mark Penn! - calls Obama "the establishment candidate." Fortunately Mark, et.al change their scripts and didn't call him the "cokehead establishment candidate who's another Jesse Jackson."

"The other thing inside my head that I didn't expect was that as the results came in, I found myself sort of rooting for Hillary. Why? Buyer's remorse? Rooting for the underdog? Guilt for having "betrayed" her by voting for Obama? A feeling that although I preferred Obama, I really didn't want to see Hillary humiliated? I think the last one is it, though I really don't know. The human mind is a devious little lump of protoplasm, isn't it?"

Humiliation???? You have GOT to be joking! The woman has already lived a remarkably charmed life--no, make that lived enough for SEVERAL charmed lifetimes--and you feel guilt and betrayal over voting for someone who has inspired the next generation--who will need all the resources they can muster in dealing with increasingly complex issues--to become engaged, empowered and involved?
Get your priorities straight!
In my opinion, it's all the women supporters of Clinton who should feel guilty for placing their own need for a woman president in '08 over their children's enthusiasm for the whole political process and the future.

This is idiotic. At some point momentum gives way to mathematics. Obviously it depends on whether superdelegates will buck the pledged delegate majority, but you have to remember that they're not committed yet and can change their support at any time. Obama won more pledged delegates yesterday. The way this is going, Clinton supporters will be saying right up to the floor count, "Well, sure he might be elected as the nominee by a majority of the delegates, but she won the big states and he doesn't have the momentum!"

Just getting caught up on Super Tuesday coverage. A friend just sent me this link to a Mike Allen Politico story, about BHO winning more delegates.

Obama astutely, nevertheless, claims this morning that Hillary is the front-runner for reasons most of us can now recite in our sleep: well-honed Clinton machine, name recognition, etc. Agree that subtext of pity/obligation also feeds into a weird electoral dynamic

Tyro,

I think you are right. There is definitely a feeling of not wanting to see Matthews or Limbaugh gloat. Of wanting to see the mouth-breathers go crazy.

The paradox is that a Hillary win would be beneficial to the Republicans and the Limbaugh Right. Out of sympathy, pity, and spite the Democrats might reward the mouth-breathers.

I've never bought too much into the "new politics" argument, but it is starting to make more sense. Picking a President out of spite for your political opponents and a sense of vengeance is old.

Adam: "I'm pretty surprised that the Clinton camp is doing so well in the spin/expectations game this morning. "

The name is this thread is "on the couch again" as KD and others discover that while they voted for Obama, they don't have a killer instinct towards Clinton. The media are no different. They want a two person race to sell ad time.

I flirted with voting Obama for a long time but concluded that Clinton, despite her crazy husband, is just the more solid candidate. She really earned my vote.

Obama is the hail-mary pass president, Clinton is the (proven) running game president.

And Obama needs to write a new speech one of these days (sorry guys, but he's getting repetitive.)