A Brown University, Rhode Island poll taken Feb. 9-10 shows Hillary Clinton maintaining her lead over Barack Obama, 36% to 28% with 27% uncommitted and 9% undecided. In September, Hillary's support was at 35%, so she gained a point. Obama gained substantially, from 16%
to 27%, garnering the votes of those previously for Edwards, Biden, Dodd, etc., but he's still 9 points behind Hillary. The undecided/uncommitted votes now are at 36%, in September they were at 35%.

Rhode Island's primary day is March 4, same as Texas and Ohio. The full poll results are here (pdf.) [More...]

Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama will be in Virginia, Maryland or D.C. tomorrow night after the primaries.

Hillary will be campaigning in El Paso, TX while Obama will be in Madison, WI. (Via Al Giordano at RuralVotes.)

Hillary will be in San Antonio on Weds, although more events may be added.

While Chelsea Clinton has been making the rounds of college campuses in Wisconsin, Hillary won't be there until Saturday night, three days before the primary. Obama hasn't been in Wisconsin since October, but his wife Michelle is already there holding roundtables.

Hillary has agreed to appear at a Wisonsin debate, but Obama has not yet responded.

Clinton also agreed to appear at a debate at Marquette University, but Obama has not responded to the invitation. U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin and Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton called on him Monday to do so, saying it was the best way for Wisconsin voters to see where the candidates stand on issues.

The youth vote will be big in Wisconsin, which will favor Obama.

If history is any judge, many of those who turn out for the primary will be first-time voters. In the 2004 general election, the state had the second-highest turnout of young voters. Minnesota was No. 1.

By Big Tent Democrat

Via dmsilev, the NYTimes reports the obvious:

She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one Democratic 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.

My reaction? Um, duh. Honestly, folks get paid to "report" this stuff? How about something interesting, like what happens if Clinton DOES win Ohio and Texas? What will that mean for Obama? What will he have to do in the face of more big state losses? Obviously Ohio and Texas will be do or die for Clinton. But if Obama loses them he gets put on the spot it seems to me. Does Obama then have to win Pennsylvania?

NOTE: Comments are closed in this thread. Everybody calm down.

You might have missed that in today's Associated Press poll, Hillary Clinton leads Barack Obama 46% to 41%. The reason: The headline to the articles about the poll all say "Obama Leading McCain." (Big Tent Democrat discusses other aspects of the poll here.)

In the fight for their party's nomination, Clinton has a 46 percent to 41 percent edge over Obama, the Illinois senator. That represents virtually no change from last month but a significant tightening since last year, when the New York senator led comfortably in most surveys.

...Democrat Barack Obama would narrowly defeat Republican John McCain if they were matched today in the presidential election, while McCain and Hillary Rodham Clinton are running about even, according to new general-election sentiment since the Super Tuesday contests.

So the AP would rather talk about last year than last month, when the big news this month has been Obama's surge...yet it hasn't resulted in a lessening of her lead.

As to the McCain factor, Hillary and McCain are 45% to 46%, essentially a tie. Obama-McCain is 48 to 42%. Then there's this: [More...]

By Big Tent Democrat

This is a startling and troubling finding from today's AP poll:

[A]bout one-third of Obama's supporters picked McCain when asked their preference in a Clinton-McCain general election matchup. Nearly three in 10 Clinton backers said they would vote for McCain over Obama.

It seems clear that most of Obama's edge in the McCain matchup is this type of simply unacceptable recalcitrance from Democratic Obama supporters, and Clinton supporters are hardly better.

I will say this bluntly - any person who claims to be a Democrat who will vote Clinton but not Obama, and vice versa, are in a cult of personality and do not deserve to be called Democrats. Such an attitude is simply disgraceful.

The Supreme Court? Iraq? Taxes? The environment? Health care? How could any Dem POSSIBLY support McCain? These are not Democrats. These are petulant, stupid members of cults of personality, for Clinton and Obama. Shame on them.

NOTE: Comments are now closed.

By Big Tent Democrat

Setting an example to us all, Markos and Jerome Armstrong, good friends and writing partners, prove that you can vociferously disagree without having the world come to an end.

I think both have good points and I have to delve into their arguments in more depth to see who I agree with, on what and why. But a big hurrah to both of them for proving that progressive blogs do not have to agree about everything and that disagreement is not the end of the blogs as we know them.

By Big Tent Democrat

His theory is this:

In doing the math on delegates, it looks highly likely that Obama will end up with a pledged delegate lead when all this is finished by June. . . . [H]ow does a party who has protested and screamed and yelled about counting all the votes, that the popular vote matters most, that an election was stolen by the Supreme Court in 2000, go against the votes and participation by voters in the Primary process???

There are two big flaws and one unproven surmise in Dowd's theory. The surmise is that Obama will lead among pledged delegates. That remains to be seen.

The first big flaw is related to that surmise - Florida and Michigan do not enter Dowd's thinking. What happens with Florida and Michigan will likely determine who leads among pledged delegates.

The San Francisco Chronicle has an article today by Bob Egelko comparing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on crime issues.

Shorter version: They are pretty similar and not particularly liberal (certainly not as much as I would like them to be.)

There are some things I take issue with. For more on Obama's record on crime and defendants' rights, see my earlier analysis here.

It's true, as the article says, that while both support the death penalty, Obama worked to revise it in Illinois to prevent wrongful convictions and Hillary was an early and consistent supporter in Congress of the Innocence Protection Act.

But neither one opposes the death penalty for the guilty. Obama, for example, supported legislation in Illinois to increase crimes eligible for the death penalty -- specifically for those convicted of brutal murders of the elderly and mentally disabled. (Chicago Tribune, May 2, 2001, available on Lexis.com) He also supports it for heinous crimes.

More...

By Big Tent Democrat

A lot of my theories of this election will be facing their moments of truth in the next month. I will lay them out here now so folks can razz me on how wrong I was.

The Dem Nomination

Hillary runs better than Obama in contested big state primaries. The tests? Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

As a result, Clinton is still the favorite for the nomination. The test? Well, winning the nomination.

To win the nomination, Obama needs to run better with women, registered Dems, Latinos and working class whites. The test? Again Texas and Ohio on March 4th.

More . . .

By Big Tent Democrat

CNN declares Obama the winner of the Maine Caucus. He leads by 58-41 with 70% of the precincts reporting. As many of us expected, it appears Barack Obama will win another February contest.

As Jeralyn reported earlier, Maine has 24 delegates. CNN projects that Obama takes 15 to Clinton's 9 for a 6 delegate gain.

Clinton is very likely to lose every contest until March 4, when big states Ohio and Texas have their contests. What effect will this string of losses have on the campaign narrative?

Update(TL): Comments almost at 250, time to close this thread. Thanks for your thoughts.

ABC News reports Hillary Clinton went to John Edwards' home in North Carolina on Thursday to ask for his support. Barack Obama is scheduled to meet with him tomorrow.

Who will Edwards endorse if anyone? He seemed more aligned with Obama when he was in the campaign, but that was mostly on lobbyists. On poverty and health care, which were his main issues, I think Hillary is closer to him.

What could each offer John Edwards if elected to sweeten the pot? I doubt he wants to be Attorney General -- maybe Hillary can offer to let him be in charge of tweaking and getting universal health care through Congress. A health care czar?

Patti Solis Doyle has stepped down as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. She will remain as a senior campaign advisor. The new campaign manager is Maggie Williams:

In a note she sent to her staff, Solis Doyle announced that this week Maggie Williams, Clinton's chief of staff when she was first lady, "will begin to assume the duties of campaign manager." Solis Doyle said she would remain as a senior adviser to the campaign.