home

Chuck Todd's Take On The Debate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:41:37 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Both Jeralyn and I like NBC's Chuck Todd's work quite a bit. He is smart and a straight shooter and so I think his reaction to last night's debate is worth looking at:

As for the big picture, the question for everyone watching this debate is: Did Clinton do anything tonight to change the trajectory of this race? And the answer is no. Did she potentially win this debate on points; I think so; it was close but she had a couple of VERY good moments on health care and the economy that probably scored well in the various focus groups of undecided voters watching this debate. Obama was uneven, at times great (like in his answers on Iraq and his speeches) but sometimes he seemed to go through the motions. It may be because he was a bit stuffed up; he was good tonight, not great. But he made no major gaffes (for the primary) and more importantly the one great rehearsed attack line Clinton had for Obama (about change you can xerox) seemed to fall flat. But Clinton needed a game-changing moment and she didn't get one tonight. And this is how this debate will be judged.

I disagree that Clinton could even have a game changing moment nor did she need one. First, there is another debate in a few days. And second, and more importantly, Clinton needs a game changing two weeks, not a game changing night. That will only come with hard work and continued focus on reconsolidating her base. Focus on health care, the economy and her personal image can do that. She accomplished all 3 last night. For the Media, Hillary did not change the game last night, but Clinton needs to understand she will never win in the Media. She needs to win with her voters in Texas and Ohio. Last night she kept that focus.

< Open Thread | Electability >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Chuck Todd's Take On The Debate | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by sancho on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
    is creating a narrative--one that is very pro-Obama. You can't change a race overnight, except by saying for weeks that the reace changed overnight. This kind of insta-analysis is, logically, absurd. Chuck Todd and others can make it "true" by repeating it over and over. But judged as analysis, and not as media propaganda in the guise of analysis, it is absurd. And it would be absurd if he said Hillary had changed the race as well. You can't make that kind of judgement immediately and it is disingenous to pretend that you can. Of course his job--media commenter and news shaper--eencourages him to be disingenuous as often as possible.

    I disagree that Clinton "needs (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    to understand" that she can't win with the media.  I see no evidence that she doesn't understand that -- witness the courage of confronting MSNBC.  

    Otherwise, I agree with what is said here -- except that I think the game already may have changed in her favor a bit, if the polls before the debate do continue to show a turn in the trend . . . as well they might because of that standing O at the end.  That sort of moment, and especially coming at the end, could have a considerable imprint and impact.

    Good point (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:54:45 AM EST


    Parent
    it's amazing (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by NJDem on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:00:38 AM EST
    b/c if BO got that standing O it would be all over the news.  Instead, the MSN is trying to play it like it was her swan song.  The irony is, does anyone even remember what he said?  Yet HE is the better speaker?

    I'm more interested in how it plays in TX.  HRC got the U-Austin school paper endorsement, and it seems the crowd was with her.  There's something to be said for word of mouth too.

    Do we know if this debate beat the ratings of the last one (which was at the time the most watched debate)?

    Take heart (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:22 AM EST
    There is another debate in a few days.

    Hard to keep calling it a swan song when you are hyping the next debate.

    Parent

    Olbermann kept emphasising the 19 debates. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:06:45 AM EST
    I was wondering, since he thinks that's ridiculous, if he'd just skip his commentary next week.

    On her closing remarks, he called it an audition for VP.

    Parent

    There have been 2 head to head (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    But it is funny - is Olbermann urging NOT watching their debate?

    Do you know if there is a transcript? I would love to make fun of him for it.

    Parent

    Here you go.. (none / 0) (#41)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM EST
    19 times, 19.  That's one more contest than the teams play in the national football league

    Countdown

    He says something again about third of the way down about it. I didn't read any further to see if there are more. It was his tone that showed how he really felt.

    Parent

    Sort of (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:23:35 AM EST
    LEt's see if he keeps it up today.

    Parent
    I found three more references. So that's five. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:29:17 AM EST
    I'm not sure what his point was.

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:30:29 AM EST
    ok. Let me look again.

    Parent
    I liked this part (none / 0) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:35:37 AM EST
    OLBERMANN:  Do you think perhaps when that moment where it got away from the moderators and that it was essentially, the two of them just talking to each other and damn the commercials and damn the topics, we're going to talk about--we're going to finish off this plagiarism stuff, we're going to finish off this differences in healthcare, stuff.

    When he said--and he made the reverse of a self-deprecating joke about his writing and saying I got to admit, some of the speeches are pretty good and then she came back with the "change you can Xerox" line, there were boos and I don't think those were boos directed at Senator Obama, that sounded like it was towards her as if, you've gone too far with this candidate, perhaps you want to back off.  Could she have backed off?  Was that maybe a signal moment in the entire campaign?

    ROBINSON:  You know, that's one possible way to look at that exchange.  Another way to look at that exchange is that to me she didn't sound like her heart was really in it when she was going after the alleged plagiarism.  It didn't sound as if--you know, when she delivered the "change you can Xerox" line, clearly it was prepared, clearly it was, you know, in the script to use.  She didn't like zing it out at him in a way that one would think she might have.  Now, maybe I'm reading too much into her manner, there.

    You know, the other episode in the debate that I found really interesting was that debate on healthcare when they just completely ignored the moderators and talk about mandate versus no mandate, and it was almost like a dorm room discussion.  It was like they were trying to convince each other and, you know, no, Barack, you're wrong.  Well, Hillary, you know, you can't make people do this and that.  It was an interesting moment, too.  It was a debate, an actually debate.

    OLBERMANN:  Right, like a debate caste or a debate club or debates that we've hear of previously.  They've gotten this thing down after 19...

    ROBINSON:  As if they were actually trying to convince each other of their position, which I thought is very unusual for a presidential debate.

    OLBERMANN:  And again, illustrative and also valuable to hear policy being discussed on national television in such nuanced form and at such length.  A rarity these days.

    ROBINSON:  Who'd have thunk it?

    I have always liked Gene Robinson and I am happy to be able to like that part.

    Parent

    I liked that too. It's really what a debate (none / 0) (#91)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM EST
    should be. I read the transcript again and I may owe KO an apology. His analysts, Robinson, Maddow and Buchanan were pretty good last night. He missed the point on her closing, I think, but it wasn't too bad. It must have been the Hardball analysts that ticked me off.

    Or maybe they've just given me a chip on my shoulder.

    Parent

    great idea (none / 0) (#98)
    by lily15 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:04:35 PM EST
    let's start making a record for keith...and send it over to media matters.  chris matthews is a little more subdued...but his guest are all anti Hillary.  Jonathan Alter is an Obamabot...has been for a long time...

    But Keith has no business doing this.

    Also, if Move On is helping arrange caucuses, can't we let the Clinton campaign know or do something? I would be curious if she moved some white men or made them less angry?  Thoughts?  And I changed my mind this morning on the debate.  I thought it was potentially game changing.  Frank Lutz did one of his phony groups and didn't get not the answers he wanted.  Everyone liked Hillary.  One lady was going to change from Obama to Hillary. Like wine, the more I see this debate, the better I like it.  Now she needs more contrast ads.

    Parent

    There Is A Group... (none / 0) (#106)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:14:29 PM EST
    That has been founded by a bunch of people, mainly in CA, for Hillary.  Obama, as has been mentioned, has had some 527s working for him for a while, Clinton not so much.  So freakin' typical that he is crying abt the ONE she now has.  Anywho, they are working to get ads out in TX and OH, as I understand it.  Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080220/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_outside_group

    Parent
    has Olberman lost his mind? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:09:25 AM EST
    or has he always been this way and I just didnt notice it?

    Parent
    HE has always been a partisan (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    newscaster and as a Dem and a progressive I love him for it. I wish he did not decide that Hillary is not a Dem though.

    Parent
    He's really awful isn't he. I watched his show (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12:04 AM EST
    before it was the cool thing to do but not anymore. I just watched last night to see if he and his analysts would give HC any credit for a good debate. How silly of me. It was awful.

    Parent
    I already stopped watching KO (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:22:08 AM EST
    and gained a needed hour in my day.  Join me. :-)

    Parent
    I don't think he was disrespectful (none / 0) (#48)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    I think he is stating reality, which is Hillary has a tough roe to hoe (as my grandma might have said). She chose not to attack Obama which is the obvious and usual advice in this situation and he correctly observed she didn't do it.  

    It may be, he agrees with me, that she should be on the ticket, if not in the top spot then as VP. She would bring a lot to the table in an election, and I think in an age of VPs with some power, she could do a lot of good.

    This is just my take.

    Parent

    For the first time, last night I could picture (none / 0) (#120)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:05:22 PM EST
    Hillary as Obama's VP....

    Obama seemed more strategic in his foreign policy views.  In response to the question about being Commander-in-Chief, Hillary recited examples of her experience and then cited curent problems....She didn't say what she would do about them.  She was just reciting lists....

    Obama placed Iraq in greater strategic context and how it has hurt us in Afghanistan, and how it has distracted us from focusing on Iran and China and how they may create mischief right here in our backyard with Hugo Chavez....The next terrorist attack could easily come via a hairball coughed up by Chavez, funded and guided by Iran....

    Hillary has mentioned that on Day One she will have a stack of problems as President....But she sounds like an in-box President, a good chief of staff....Long term, strategic thinking is what is needed.....On 9/10, Condi was worried about  Russian Missiles....The next President needs to have a better imagination, which is the trait that Toni Morrison sees in Obama.

    With all her experience, (and Cheney and Rumsfeld had experience too) she has yet to show that she has a long term, strategic view of the world.  She deals with problems as they come to her....  

    Obama has been consistently ahead of the curve....First, as we all know on Iraq, and now China and Iran.

    And, I was glad to see him dial it back on Cuba and meeting with bad-guy leaders....Preparation v. precondition is the best way to shift on this....

    Parent

    I too (none / 0) (#93)
    by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:57:34 AM EST
    used to watch Olberman.  I waited to see if he would give her credit for anything, and as usual he could not.

    So , I have decided he is not who he led me to believe he was.   Now I think his righteous indignation at Bush was just a parody of journalism.  

    Also, his interpretation of her closing was so far off the mark as I saw it.  He saw it was a swan song.  I thought showed why she will continue to be in the race, because her motivation comes from the heart.

    Also, now I see him as a sort of know it all.  I want to say to him "   Gee Keith, do your ever think that you could be WRONG about anything?"

    Parent

    Why KO lost me: monitoring PYTs on shame spirals (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    The nightly sight of Obe-wan and Michael Musto snorting and drooling over the latest 20-sump'n Pretty Young Thing (being drunk, going to rehab, behaving badly etc. etc. etc.) was too much.

    I got sick of the blatant sexism of homely doughboy Michael Musto using Countdown as a forum to go on about how FAT (?!?!?!) Britney Spears got as KO snarfed along -- oh no you DINNIT! It just got to be too much and as bad (in sexist terms) as Imus (in racist terms), but sexism is generally more tolerated, speaking from what I've experienced both personally and professionally. (YMMV)

    Actually, watching Countdown maintain this obsession was MORE than too much since KO went to great trouble to have his own 20-sump'n boss's daughter girlfriend's drunken sluttishness scrubbed off the Inner Netz. (Presumably, he doesn't want a couple of middle aged horndogs such as himself snorting and drooling over his new live=in smoochie.)

    DISCLAIMER: I think Britney Spears is a phony, a hypocrite and a skank for advocating Abstinence and Moral Values while taking to the RW airwaves as a Bush supporter and priss-mouth but in her personal life being as bad a drunken slag as, well, ME. (Diff: I happily cop to my evil ways.)

    Parent

    Sympathy (none / 0) (#109)
    by delandjim on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM EST
    She may get the sympathy vote from next debate. Being MSNBC I'm thinking it may be a reenactment from the one in Dec. with all the panel attacking her. I thinking of Russert waving that letter at her accusing her of not getting her records released acting like it was a recent letter when it was from the early '90's.

    Parent
    I kidded a colleague who was (none / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:54 AM EST
    waiting for the elevator last night just as the debate was starting that he would miss it.  He sd., haven't there already been 10 debates?  That is enough for me.  And he's a Dem. Of course, he's a CA Dem. and we've already voted in the primary.

    Parent
    comments in student paper (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    I'd go there and add your thoughts

    Parent
    My suggestion to Hilary (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM EST
    on the plagiarism charge is that a better approach for her on her next debate is instead of using xerox comment that did not go over so well I would say the following to him:  

    "Barack, forget that it's plagiarism in the legal sense of the word for a moment, you got to realize that your followers need to believe you because you are original and that all your words of wisdom are yours and yours alone.  When people whose hope are up so high find out you used some on else's  words and you made them believe they were your own words of wisdom, even if you had the other person's  permission to do so, they feel somewhat duped and disappointed and their hopes are no longer as strong as they were before."

    My suggestion to HRC: drop it. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    It was a stupid attack from the word go.

    Parent
    "The word go" was a question (none / 0) (#37)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19:04 AM EST
    to him and her directly on this.  His answer was first and was laughable, btw.  Then she was asked to address it, whereas calling it an attack suggests that she initiated it.  (I know you wrote here last night that you were not watching at that point.)

    Parent
    that was last night (none / 0) (#47)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:22:20 AM EST
    But her campaign promoted the attack before.

    Parent
    Just as Stupid... (none / 0) (#103)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    As Obama going after Hillary for saying,"Whatever happens, we're going to be fine"???  I mean, REALLY - a gazillion people have said something like that!

    And he HAS plagarized, not jsut from Patrick, but from CLINTON.  He has taken her economic speech almost in its ENTIRETY when the complaints started rolling in that he was all rhetoric and no substance.  He may be brilliant, but from where I was sitting last night, he parroted almost EVERYTHING Clinton said - NO ORIGINALITY!

    Frankly, I think it is an INCREDIBLY sad commentary that people no longer think plagarism is a problem (btw, a Columnia prof just got sanctioned for it).  It is CHEATING, people - plain and simple.  That's why you can get kicked out of school for it.  It's wrong.  BUt hey - if it was Clinton doing it, I am sure you'd be all over her for it!

    Parent

    That won't work any better. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:15:43 AM EST
    Without evidence of several other instances of (real) plagarism the issue is dead.

    Parent
    The ability to digitize textual searching (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:11:48 PM EST
    these days could make a difference, if those with the technological means and ability start looking at Obama's earlier work.  It used to take a lot longer to do this.

    Parent
    I do not agree (none / 0) (#90)
    by independent voter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    I am an Obama supporter, and think the plagiarism charge is ridiculous, it has no bearing on my support for Barack Obama and I do not feel duped or disappointed. I admire his intelligence, some of which is recognizing a good thought or turn of phrase. No President runs the country by his or herself.

    Parent
    Well, if he were to plagiarize me (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:10:21 PM EST
    -- and my work has been plagiarized before -- I'd sue.  After all, he's paying the big bucks to speechwriters, and they only cut and paste?

    So you just have to hope that he's careful to only plagiarize from people he knows who won't sue, huh?

    Parent

    On what cause of action? (none / 0) (#118)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:44:54 PM EST


    Parent
    What cause? Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#121)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:18:14 PM EST
    Do you not understand the concept of intellectual property?

    Parent
    Plagiarism is a huge problem (none / 0) (#108)
    by g8grl on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:28:45 PM EST
    Primarily because it's so easy to do and it doesn't appear to harm anyone.  It's a big deal because we don't want our kids going through school taking other people's work and turning it in.  How do we stop that?  It's easier to tell kids "don't do drugs" or "don't hit other people" because they can see the harm.  It's much tougher to stop plagiarism and for Obama to brush it off demonstrates just how ugly it can be.  How then does he tell his kids not to copy a book for a book report?

    Parent
    You Really Think The MEDIA isn't Pro Hillary? (none / 0) (#4)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 10:59:54 AM EST
    Imagine if Barack Obama had lost 10 straight states....Compare-would the media be treating him any different from the way they are now treating Hillary?

    If the results were diffierent- I really belive they would be saying "it's over"

    Do they make snearing, snide remarks about (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    Huckabee the way they did on post-debate Hardball and Countdown last night?

    When Obama was way behind last fall he still got the favorable press, not Clinton.

    Parent

    Bwahahahahaha! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:00:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Glad I made you Laugh...Seriously (none / 0) (#13)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:06:36 AM EST
    Anyway-pretty certain that if Obama had lost 5 in a row....the Media would have re-anointed HRC....and this race would be over.

    Parent
    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12:54 AM EST
    I laughed because THAT IS PRECISELY what is going on now.

    Obama has been anointed and Hillary is being told to shove off.

    The irony was priceless.

    Parent

    Quick Question- Did HRC Campaign Conciously (none / 0) (#53)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:24:21 AM EST
    go into the "HRC is inevitable candidate/ ready on day 1" strategy....and figure that the media would "buy" into this...and therefore, she did not have to plan beyond superduper tuesday??

    Parent
    People do (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:27:38 AM EST
    argue that there was little to no contingency for a nomination campaign beyond Feb. 5 which led to money and organizational problems for HRC. Most folks agree that whatever the precise details, she's been horribly betrayed by Mark Penn and his office.

    Parent
    Was it a Conscious Decision to Campaign this way? (none / 0) (#67)
    by TearDownThisWall on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    or was the campaign "blind sided" by Obamamania?

    can't wait to read the inside story on this....some day

    Parent

    She could fire Penn at any time (none / 0) (#69)
    by JJE on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM EST
    The past eight years have made me very suspicioius of leaders who retain incompetents even after their incompetence is well-established.

    Parent
    Agreed, from what I saw in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:40:13 AM EST
    with only days between the campaign shakeup and the primary.  Campaigns always are chaotic, but this one was more so with so little notice of events -- and she got very bad advice to not hold a public event in Milwaukee.  We will see if the new management has settled in sufficiently by now for Ohio and Texas.

    Parent
    she needed a big night because (none / 0) (#12)
    by Heather on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:05:36 AM EST
    there are only so many news cycles left, only so much momentum available, the polls are tightening and it looks like the conventional wisdom has turned against her. She will probably lose Texas. The fat lady is warming up.

    Now (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:07:52 AM EST
    The only menaningful part of your comment to me is "she will probably lose Texas."

    That remains to be seen. If she gained last night, she is LESS likely to lose Texas. If she started to turn the polls around LAST NIGHT then this could be the beginning of winning Texas.

    12 days to March 4.

    Parent

    Markos said last night that if it was held (none / 0) (#18)
    by Teresa on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:09:20 AM EST
    yesterday, he'd win by 10 and by the 4th, to expect a Wisconsin type blowout because his ground game is that much better.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:12 AM EST
    Markos and I both have very spotty prediction records, so choose your poison.

    Parent
    Markos (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:44 AM EST
    now THERES an unbiased observer

    Parent
    Wasn't HRC much further (none / 0) (#20)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    ahead in the polls in TX say a month ago than she is now?

    Parent
    She was (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:11:53 AM EST
    And she was up 20 in Cali, lost all of her lead, and won by 10.

    Same in Mass and NJ.

    Parent

    I'm pretty sure she'll win Ohio (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:13:23 AM EST
    and I think she has a good shot at TX.

    My prediction is that this is still going to go on to PA, and I selfishly proclaim that my vote will matter.

    Parent

    It's funny about Ohio (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM EST
    Obama seems to be less active there.

    Do they think it is insurmountable there?

    Parent

    Hey BTD (none / 0) (#32)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:17:42 AM EST
    Writing from Ohio where there are signs of a good fundamental ground operation. Calls, ads, emails informing where to pick up yard signs, emails about getting speech tickets [across the street from a county early voting station!], etc..

    Looking sound from here.

    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:18:44 AM EST
    I am just talking about what I read on the blogs and in the Media and where Obama seems to be spending most of his time.

    Parent
    Dunno (none / 0) (#38)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:19:13 AM EST
    He's going haywire on trade/NAFTA, which makes me think that he's making a play for it. But I really have to say that Hillary seems a much better fit for the demographic. I think she'll keep her woman voter numbers up there.

    Parent
    I recently read an article (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:25:50 AM EST
    about blue collar male voters in Ohio, who became "Reagan Democrats," are vehemently anti-HRC, and will vote for Obama.  

    Parent
    all of them (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    Or just the three that were interviewed by the reporter?

    Parent
    Good point; but the (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:32:03 AM EST
    photo showed lots of guys!

    Parent
    is Ohio open or just democrats (none / 0) (#92)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:55:34 AM EST


    Parent
    Lot of them in Wisconsin, too (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM EST
    where I knew and said that women do not do well in politics here, behind a lot of states in that (and in many other measures of women's progress -- or lack of it, in Wisconsin's case).  Reagan (non-)Dems (and Reagan Repubs who crossed over) won the primary here . . . and anyone who wins them worries me.

    Parent
    True. (none / 0) (#28)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    It is worrisome to read Obama campaign has caucus voters for TX fired up and ready to go and also to read HRC campaign is puzzled by TX procedures.  

    Parent
    there was (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    only one poll which showed her winning in CA, right at the end; the vast majority of them had her several points ahead, and she ended up winning by 9 points.

    Every single poll after Feb. 5th has under-guessed Obama's results.  There's no reason to think that the Texas and Ohio polls will not do so as well.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:29:20 AM EST
    But she completely outperformed the polls in Cali.

    Why do you deny this?

    Obama is in the drivers seat but he got spanked in MA, NJ and CA when he was supposed to perform much better. That is a fact.

    Parent

    No, it isn't (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cycloptichorn on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    Only a few polls ever showed him catching up in those places.  Hillary was WAY ahead for months and months.  Now, it's obvious that some of the polls were incorrect and she over-performed them.  But it's silly to say that Obama was in the 'driver's seat.'

    Here's an average of polls taken before super tuesday:

    Pollster.com

    You will note that in CA, NJ, and MA the average of polling ALL had Clinton winning handily.  The averages were almost spot on to where she actually ended up in those states.  She didn't over-perform any of her averages in any big state.

    On the other hand, the average of polls in TX at this point shows Obama barely behind.  And his trendlines are fantastic.  Look for him to win handily there based upon both available and historic data.

    Parent

    I was confused. (none / 0) (#31)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:16:00 AM EST
    I thought she needed to either change the narrative in this race or lay the tracks for going out classy. As I watched an waited for series of narrative-changing messages (or outright attacks) they never materialized. Good, I thought; she's going out classy.

    The confusing moment was when she did the awkward "Xerox" thing. What? I asked. Now you drop this thing that makes you look [insert adjective here].

    Then, in her final speech she returned to class. And class it was. And it did indeed sound "valedictory" to use someone else's apt term.

    So why the wild swing back and forth?

    Full disclosure: I would like Hillary to lose because her vote authorizing war and because I think she'll summon the far-rightist base out to vote who might otherwise stay home. I, however, would really like her to do what she does best--brass-knuckle street-fighting with Republicans--as Senate majority leader. So I am desperate for her not to pull any shenanigans that ends the possibility of her leading the party in Congress.

    Ithink the confusion comes from (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:18:01 AM EST
    the words "she needs to."

    It was merely the Media that thought she "needed to" imo.

    She needed a good strong debate that helped focus on her issues, health care and economy, and to burnish her personal image.

    I think she did all 3.

    Parent

    Just mho (none / 0) (#40)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:20:21 AM EST
    about what she "needed to" do.

    Parent
    Not just yours (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:21:32 AM EST
    You are in the majority. My view is the distinctly minority one.

    Parent
    Not just one (none / 0) (#52)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:24:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Predicting the future (none / 0) (#68)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:31:55 AM EST
    Those who chose Kerry in 2004 because he was more electable burned the Democratic party.  People are doing it again. Hillary is the best candidate.  To assume that the right will get fired up and defeat Hillary is ludicrous.  The right went after BC with all it had and lost.  Americans are tired of their game, but Obama is using that meme to bring down Hillary.

    Parent
    Correct, I recall opting for electability (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:33:58 AM EST
    in 2004.  I didn't make that mistake this time.


    Parent
    Now that is (none / 0) (#99)
    by sas on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:25 PM EST
    a really good idea.

    Hillary for leading the Senate.  She would be brilliant at that.

    Somebody with cojones, as opposed to Harry Ried, who is OK, but not forceful.

    Parent

    Unlikely (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:17:24 PM EST
    so long as Kennedy, Kerry and Durbin are in the Senate and Daschle carping from the sidelines.

    More likely to appoint her to some other job...maybe even Supreme Court to shut her up and get her offstage and out of any future political battles with the DC establishment.


    Parent

    I don't think Clinton can possibly (none / 0) (#34)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:18:37 AM EST
    win this thing just by being better. She needs huge wins in most of the upcoming states, and it's very doubtful that she can get them. The only way she wins is if Obama has some kind of major scandal, which I very much doubt. Basically, Obama needs to give a major speech declaring his intention to sell this country back to England. I'm not gonna hold my breath.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST
    She has not won since Super Tuesday. Are you saying winning by say, 8 in Texas and 10 in Ohio, does not change the game? I think it does. It puts her back in it.

    Parent
    Mathmatically, doesn't she need to (none / 0) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:23:12 AM EST
    win something 65% of the upcoming delegates? That's a very tall order. If she had won in Wisconsin, I'd be singing a different tune. But at this point... I think I'll be singing a dirge.

    Parent
    As andgarden observes (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:27:34 AM EST
    I do not believe Clinton's path runs through overtaking Obama in pledged delegates.

    It runs through being close on the PDs, ahead, even slightly, in the PV (here is an untold story, she probably gained ground in WA) and have a narrative - to wit, she won all the contested big states.

    The thing must be perceived as a tie and with other tiebreakers deciding it - Big states, key states (PA, OH), Democrats vs. non-Dems, etc.

    Parent

    Remember FL and MI... (none / 0) (#75)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    IF Hillary gets close enough in pledged delegates after TX, PA, and OH, adding those delegates in could make a critical difference -- I don't know if they'd be enough to change who won on pledged delegates, but it could make the difference nearly negligible.

    And having won the big contests toward the end would certainly give her the perception of momentum. Hillary gets close enough in pledged delegates after TX, PA, and OH, adding those delegates in could make a critical difference -- I don't know if they'd be enough to change who won on pledged delegates, but it could make the difference nearly negligible.

    And having won the big contests toward the end would certainly give her the perception of momentum.

    Parent

    Yes of course (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    But those arguments are for after she wins TX, OH and PA, if she does.

    Parent
    Garbled comment (none / 0) (#80)
    by frankly0 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    Obviously the content got repeated somehow.

    Sorry.

    Parent

    Wisconsin changed delegate count little (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:31:59 AM EST
    The state Dems now reported the pledged delegate results as 42 for Obama, 32 for Clinton.  (I think she got one more than the popular vote would suggest because she got some rural northern counties on the borders with Michigan and Minnesota, as well as some rural ones in the central area, and rural votes still hold more sway in Wisconsin.)

    Not sure how much of a margin there was in Hawaii, with even fewer delegates, I think.  But bottom line re your reply is that you may be overestimating the percentage of pledged delegates needed in Ohio and Texas to keep her campaign going -- or his, since the mathematicians have shown that he can't lock it up by getting to the needed number, either.

    Parent

    I nailed it! (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:37:54 AM EST
    That is what I said early that night.

    I am a genius!!!

    Parent

    Yep, the winner-take-all thinking (none / 0) (#86)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    is just not thinking through the process.

    Parent
    BTD you are a genius (none / 0) (#97)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:51 PM EST
    why so surprised.  Your analysis are about as good as they come because they are insightful and fair.  You can't get better than that.

    Parent
    Most people speak from the perspective (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:23:22 AM EST
    of a pledged delegate zealot.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:25:04 AM EST
    that's not my perspective.

    She needs to be closer of course.

    But what she needs is a superdelegate narrative. You know my drill on this.

    Parent

    BTD (none / 0) (#101)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    perhaps you can answer this for me: why is the pledged delegates number different on each "major" site?  I assume either a delegate goes Obama or goes Clinton.  Why do we not have a firm number?  What is up with this fuzzy math, and who gets the final say for what the real numbers are--the DNC?  

    Parent
    Superdelegates (none / 0) (#115)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:21:55 PM EST
    vote with their states at the convention.  Each one gets the final say on their own vote.  The end.

    Parent
    Georgia was not winnable for Hillary (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:20:57 AM EST
    and as her need to loan herself money showed, she had to husband her resources.

    This maybe slightly off-topic, but (none / 0) (#44)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:21:45 AM EST
    I just got an e-mail from a "Feminist for Clinton" who is urging everyone who can to take some time off and go to Texas to help Hillary at any level. Ground game, calling voters, stumping. Whatever anyone can do.

    I certainly can't go to Texas, but I feel like there is now-or-never fever among Clinton supporters and they are gonna go all out. Atleast I hope so.

    Phone-banking can be done from (none / 0) (#57)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    anywhere, and for either candidate, I presume.  (I can't leave, either, much as I'd like to go anywhere with less snow!)

    Parent
    Yea (none / 0) (#72)
    by ajain on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:32:13 AM EST
    I plan on doing that. But if people can go there and help out, they should.

    Parent
    Where Team Obama has been smart (none / 0) (#117)
    by Ellie on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:36:26 PM EST
    Amid his inspiring speech, he's woven specific instructions. Example:

    • Warning voters about DNS (Did Not Specify party)
    • Telling voters to bring "a friend, a cousin, an uncle ... don't vote alone!"

    Not only do these "inspiring" -- LOL -- words go out to the particular venue in realtime, but broadcast to a nat'l audience.

    It gives people who don't have much to say in their text messages an excuse to use it; "busy work" if you will.

    My personal heroes MLK, Gandhi and the throng of hard-assed sisterhood from days of yore were all superb organizers in addition to being genuinely inspirational. They all did the same thing.

    The difference to my eyes and ears, and where Obama (and his team) begin to seem cynical and false, is when they become pissy and personally offended at the first whiff of criticism or skepticism. My s/heroes weren't so fixated on their image nor inclined to be offended. Why not? Because they were themselves critical, discriminating and opinionated by nature and fair minded enough not to be critical in others of character traits they possessed themselves.

    Parent

    We were wondering (none / 0) (#46)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:22:10 AM EST
    why we weren't being contacted by Hillary folks here in OH. We've left a long paper trail as obvious Dem voters, but not a word.

    Calls Are... (none / 0) (#107)
    by AmyinSC on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:19:38 PM EST
    Being made in OH.  If you went to the hillaryclinton.com site, and to the Action Center to make calls, OH is what comes up first.  So, people are doing it - they may not have gotten to you yet.

    Come to think of it, given that YOU are in OH, what better person to make the calls?!?  :-D

    Parent

    So.... (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    you contacted the campaign to volunteer, right?

    Right?

    Or are you just waiting by the phone?

    Parent

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#119)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:04:25 PM EST
    while otherwise there would be very many reasons to support Hillary, I am opposed to her on principle. I cannot excuse her Iraq war vote. This is in part motivated by being a new parent.

    I, however, do not demonize her supporters; I think a reasonable person can support her.

    (If she is elected I fear that she will summon many far rightists to vote who would otherwise stay home. I cannot prove this, of course, but I can point to history and her existing negative poll numbers. This is a secondary objection, far below her choice on the war.)

    Parent

    I Appreciate Your Position (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    And if Obama hadn't voted for funding and used rightwing talking points against pushing a fight over a withdrawal timeline in last summer's budget battle, Iraq might be the deciding factor for me, too.  As it is, I cannot give Obama any credit for great moral leadership on this issue.  

    For me, the issue is universal healthcare coverage, the lack of which kills at least 18,000 Americans every year, and not only has Obama shown no leadership on this issue and undermined it with his Harry & Louise ads, he's put one of the Democrats who helped kill UHC in the 1990s as a point person on the issue.  

    I can accept politicians who make mistakes, as I think Hillary did on Iraq (although I think the vote is more defensible than people give her credit for, ultimately the decision to authorize force was the wrong one), but I cannot accept politicians, particularly those claiming to be progressive, who undermine a policy that would save so many American lives (not mention money) simply to win their party's nomination.  

    So I guess we all have our moral lines in the sand.

    Parent

    Your (none / 0) (#125)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    reaction to Obama--kills people via bad health policy for political calculation--is very similar to mine on HRCs on the Iraq war.

    I respect that you've carefully reasoned your position and that it is one of principle.

    Parent

    Most Important Thing, I Think (none / 0) (#126)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:49:51 PM EST
    As I've said many times, I can't help but feel - mostly thanks to the MSM - that the country is caught in some sort of Obama fever (which of course does not mean every Obama supporter) and I'll feel much better about him getting the nomination if the fever breaks and he wins anyway.  Not because I think there are no rational reasons to vote for him, but because I don't trust decisions made in a fever and, ironically, I think that was part of the problem with Iraq.  

    Parent
    Interesting. (none / 0) (#127)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:54:58 PM EST
    That's a thoughtful connection you draw between the "fevers."

    Hey, BDB, I've enjoyed our conversation. I'm turning off my internets now so I can actually get some work done! Didn't want you to think I was disregarding you...

    Parent

    OK..... (none / 0) (#122)
    by oldpro on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    keep in mind, tho, that her Iraq War vote was exactly the same vote as Kerry's and Daschle's...the Obama resource team who drafted Obama to run.

    Nevertheless, I do not think those Dems who voted for the resolution would - any of them - have invaded Iraq.  Do you?

    Remembering that the hot warriors tried for two years to get Bill Clinton to do it...98-99...he said no.  The inspectors needed to finish their job...not be pulled out as Bush did so he could invade and play 'shock and awe.'

    Parent

    Thanks for your (none / 0) (#124)
    by hvs on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 02:31:57 PM EST
    reply, oldpro. I see it's obviously a sincere and reasoned one--which can be lacking in most comments, regardless of blogs!

    Parent
    Clinton calls in Wisconsin to me (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    outnumbered Obama calls, only one, from my Congresswoman.  I heard similar tallies from others here -- those who bothered to answer their phones when so bothered.  So measuring the "game" by calls may not matter.  

    A statergey that IMO has been overlooked (none / 0) (#65)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    Why does not Hilary use the Obama rhetoric that I represent the future and the Clintons represent the past, to her advantage.  In particular she should say.  "What is so wrong with the accomplishments of those who have been there so long, fifteen years or more by your standards.  Kennedy and Johnson accomplish great things, but by your standards they are the old establishment.  How about the many good administration that followed that accomplish great things.  Why do you equate longevity's in public office with such a bad wrap.  In fact the path that made you a lawyer, a state senator, and a US senator was probably paved by many old timers you seem to discard as symbols of what is so wrong in politics today"

    I'm not sure that using Kennedy (none / 0) (#85)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    as an example is a good strategy for her.  Kennedy is more a symbol of newness and youth, which is his thing.  

    I also think that the past stuff is in part code for  the scandals and triangulation of the Clinton years and her vote (along with much of the dem establishment) for the war.


    Parent

    But there lies the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#96)
    by Saul on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:36 PM EST
    He called the Clinton's and McCain the past those who have been fifteen years or more and labeled them  every thing his campaign was against. So how do you square taking the endorsement of Caroline whose father was there for 14 years before he ran for the presidency as well as taking the endorsement of Teddy who has been there for ever. Why the double standard?

    Parent
    Went to Hillary rally in McAllen, TX (none / 0) (#66)
    by ivs814 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:31:49 AM EST
    on Wednesday and can tell you that they had a lot of volunteers but most of them did not know what they were doing.  It was scheduled to start at 5pm and they didn't allow any one in until past 6:30.  She didn't show up until 7:30.  There was a lot of enthusiasm.  Henry Cisneros was the MC and he really enphasized the caucuses.  They borrowed from the Obama campaign by making us all pull out our cellphones and call 442008.  

    It is really disheartning to see that the infamous "Clinton machine" is a myth.  You get a sense that they are only now getting their ground game together.  They've been saying that Texas is the firewall for so long and yet they don't appear to have all their ducks in a row.  Really sad.  

    A few observations (none / 0) (#74)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:34:12 AM EST
    1. She needs to drop the plagerism thing.  She got booed.  Its stupid.  There are already videos of her using the words of Edwards and Clinton, she employs speech writers.  Drop it now.

    2. She needs to work on her facial expression when Obama is talking.  She was often smirking as if waiting to pounce, not good.

    3. She needs to keep Mark Penn in a box.  The Times story today is just reinforcing the meme that she is running a bad campaign (which is partially true -- she was overconfident in thinking she would win early, relied to much on big donors, and failed to build the kind of ground operation that Obama has in every state, but she still needs to beat it back).

    In truth I doubt she can turn it around at this point.  Even if she wins Texas, which is looking iffy at best, the (wacky) delegate allocation rules there make it unlikely she will make up much ground where it matters.  Even a big win in Ohio by itself won't do it.  They are clearly going with an all or nothing strategy with Bill out there saying she can't win the nomination if she does not win Texas.  

    You can complain about the media all you want but I'm unmoved.  There is no reason to think the media will be any kinder to her in the general, so if she can't overcome it now better to give Obama a shot.  (I've said before I think either will beat McCain, the media is just getting warmed up on him).

    I think they both need to be careful not to say anything that will damage the other in the general.  They pretty much did that last night, which is heartening.

    Far right opposition to Hillary in the ge. (none / 0) (#76)
    by Concerned voter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    What makes you think it wasn't present in those open primaries and caucuses.  Primary exit polls show that she got more dem votes and his total had republicans and independents mixed in.

    How can you complain about (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jgarza on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:41:54 AM EST
    the media.  If Obama had lost 11 straight contests all by double digits and was having money troubles, would the media still be calling it close.

    Time to stop all the whining about press coverage and get real.  She has run a terrible campaign, the only reason she is till in this is because he last name is Clinton.

    Oh (none / 0) (#89)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:46:17 AM EST
    it's 11 now?

    Parent
    Dems overseas (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:00:13 PM EST
    Obama won a half delegate.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#111)
    by Steve M on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:34:39 PM EST
    But if we're going to count contests which took place on Super Tuesday just because the results weren't reported until later, then you'd have to bring up Hillary's win in New Mexico.

    Parent
    Hillary (none / 0) (#87)
    by AF on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 11:44:22 AM EST
    did what she needed to do.  Unfortunately for her, Obama didn't do what she needed HIM to do, which is screw up.  But I agree, there are two more weeks for that to happen.

    Obama doesn't do well without teleprompter (none / 0) (#100)
    by Prabhata on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:05:35 PM EST
    He rambled with most answers.  I thought he was awful.

    Parent
    Obama needs a ... (none / 0) (#110)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:34:07 PM EST
    teleprompter to order Chinese Food.

    Without a 'prompter, he Kerrifies me!

    The same rambling, Kerry-like answers.

    Parent

    we can all be making calls (none / 0) (#95)
    by nycvoter on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST
    they really need our help making calls and traveling to Tx and Oh.  

    My Atlanta experience (none / 0) (#105)
    by Kathy on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:12:10 PM EST
    has been the exact opposite of yours.  Most everyone at my gym has a Hillary sticker, and you can't drive down Highland or Monroe without seeing yard signs.  Briarcliff is riddled with them.  
    I also got a zillion phone calls from both sides and went to two Clinton events (where I saw John Lewis, who apparently was lying when he said Clinton was the best candidate, but I digress)

    I wonder why there was a disparity?  Maybe different neighborhoods or different parts of Atlanta (Fulton vs DeKalb)?  It's a good example, though, of how campaigns can only do so much.  Obviously, you and I live in the same city but we've seen very different things.

    A Balloon or a Bubble? (none / 0) (#112)
    by BDB on Fri Feb 22, 2008 at 12:53:25 PM EST
    I totally agree with your analysis, BTD.  

    Clinton needs for the dynamics to change.  It seems to me there are two ways for that to happen, if his support is a bubble, it could burst in one fell swoop - he says something stupid, gets caught have done something stupid, or world events turn on him in a way that makes people not want to take a leap of faith with their vote (that makes change dramatically less important than experience).  

    The other possibility, is that his support is like a balloon and could deflate slowly over the next two weeks.  In this regard, I'm going to be contrarian and say I think the plagairism stuff could hurt him if it starts to tie into a larger narrative that he's all hat and no cattle, to use a Texas phrase.

    The problem for Clinton is whether either of these things happen is largely out of her control.  The only one she can do anything about is the deflation and her best bet at spurring that is to pick at Obama with things like the plaigerism stuff and anything else that pushes the idea that he's simply the New Coke, more a marketing campaign than a leader, while bolstering her image as the substantive, experienced on.  This is where the focus on her strengths is so crucial and I think she did a good job of that last night.  

    And while Obama may yet put her away on March 4th, she has some reason to be hopeful that a deflation might happen.  Obama hasn't seen a huge bump this past week in the daily tracking polls.  Now, I'm normally very leery of such polls, but I'm astonished that with all of his wins and the media coverage, he still hasn't been able to break open a significant lead.  

    Here's the last week of Rasmussen, note that while Clinton hasn't particularly gained, Obama has dropped a bit:


    HRC     BHO
    41%     44%     02/22/08
    41%     46%     02/21/08
    40%     47%     02/20/08
    42%     46%     02/19/08
    43%     47%     02/18/08
    44%     47%     02/17/08
    43%     47%     02/16/08

    And as for Gallup, yesterday Hillary took the lead for the first time since February 9-11:

    The latest three-day average finds Clinton favored by 45% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters and Obama by 44%. Gallup interviews from Feb. 19, the first day following Obama's strong win in Tuesday's Wisconsin primary, do not show an increase in Obama's support that some might have expected as a result.

    Clinton's technical one-percentage point lead is the first time she has been ahead of Obama in Gallup Daily Poll tracking since Feb. 9-11, although it is statistically indistinguishable from Obama's one-point lead in Gallup's Feb. 16-18 interviewing.

    Not a sign that Obama is deflating by any means, but also not a sign that he's broken this race open once and for all.

    Chuck Todd's Take On The Debate | 126 comments (126 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment