Tonight, the Republican National Committee hosted its "Happy Hour for Hillary" at the Paramount Cafe in downtown Denver. The joke amongst fellow journalists today was that it would be 50 of us standing around the one Hillary supporter who showed up to consider voting for John McCain.

Instead, I was surprised to find the actual ratio to be quite different. Though the party was largely filled with McCain supporters, there were several undecided Democrats in attendance. Here are a few snapshots from the scene. A Clinton supporter being interviewed by CNN's ace reporter Ed Hornick:


Some McCain volunteers doing their best to sway the undecided Democrats:

The Nation's Ari Melber has a response from Hillary Clinton to the news I posted earlier that the Republican National Committee is hosting a "happy hour for Hillary" in Denver tonight, in an attempt to woo moderate Democrats over to John McCain. Protestors aside, it's a bit of a stretch to think that anyone putting forth all the effort to attend the DNC could be swayed to support the other side for a few free drinks. From the statement:

"This party won't exactly make it onto the list of recommended events for Hillary Clinton's supporters," Mo Elleithee told The Nation on Monday afternoon. "Senator Clinton supports Senator Obama and is urging all of her supporters to do the same," she added.

Yeah, no joke. The Republican National Committee is here in Denver, site of the Democratic National Convention. And as part of their ongoing effort to court Hillary Clinton supporters, they will be throwing a happy hour this evening in her honor. From the press release:

***MEDIA ADVISORY***
RNC HOSTS HAPPY HOUR FOR HILLARY IN DENVER


DENVER - As the Democratic National Convention kicks off in Denver, Colo., the Republican National Committee (RNC) will host a Happy Hour for Hillary today. From Republicans to independents to open-minded Democrats, John McCain is gathering support from voters nationwide who believe that he is the most qualified candidate to lead our country as Commander in Chief.

Wandering around the Pepsi Center, I found some memorabilia stands that are not yet open to the public. There were various bumper stickers, "Democrats are hot! Have you ever heard of a hot piece of elephant?" But most conspicuous were the various campaign buttons for sale. There were a few Barack Obama buttons and one Michelle Obama button, but the rest all made use of Hillary Clinton's image. Also absent, any buttons or memorabilia featuring Joe Biden:

John McCain's campaign released a new add "Passed Over" at 3am. The significance? The ad is another clear pitch for Hillary Clinton supporters who have still not crossed over to support Barack Obama.

"She won millions of votes. But isn't on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth," says the ad's female voiceover. The ad uses footage of several interviews with Clinton in which she questions Obama's specifics on policy proposals and says his campaign "has become increasingly negative."

The ad ends with this zinger, "The truth hurt, and Obama didn't like it." The ad already has over 100,000 views:

Right now, there are two Drudge report links about how Obama "blinked" by allowing Hillary Clinton's name to be put up for the nomination along Obama's in Denver. Michael Goodwin writes:

Obama blinked and stands guilty of appeasing Clinton by agreeing to a roll call vote for her nomination.

 And sure enough, an email from Clinton just arrived in the inboxes of her supporters. Are the conspiracy theories about Clinton wanting to "steal" the nomination correct? The 394 word message talks about uniting behind Obama and his acceptance of the nomination on Thursday of convention week. It also mentions Clinton's own Tuesday speech and includes a fundraising pitch to have dinner with Hillary at the convention. But what it doesn't contain is a single reference to Clinton's name being on the nomination ballot. 

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat looks at new poll numbers in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, seeing a race that still favors Barack Obama but that is closer than it should be. And much of the blame is placed on what is seen as Obama's "refusal" to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate. 

While the Quinnipiac numbers show Obama leading in all three states, BTD argues that McCain will ultimately win FL and OH because of state demographics, i.e. male and white voters, which aren't correctly tabulated in the survey:

Obama still wins the election because he will flip Iowa, New Mexico and Colorado for sure. But there is no reason why it should be this close. His stubborn refusal to pick Hillary Clinton, his insistence in causing political trouble for himself with the VP pick, will make this a closer election than it should be. The political obtuseness on this critical decision is amazing to me.

As has been widely reported, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama met privately in Washington yesterday. Most of the blog discussion concerns whether Clinton was lobbying for the VP spot. Could part of that bargaining be a deal with Obama helping to retire her $30M campaign debt in exchange for the help of her big fundraisers, who would pull in an estimated $50-$100M?

While Obama certainly would welcome the financial support of Clinton's backers, he's also not desperate for cash. Robert Stacy McCain muses:

This will be a chance to see how Obama, who has said he is willing to meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions, handles very sensitive diplomatic negotiations.

Did you get this earlier? I got my concession email from Hillary Clinton at 1:36am this morning. Clinton says she'll have an as yet unspecified "event" in DC this Saturday, during which:

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

Liberal bloggers, and Barack Obama's online supporters in general, have been cool to the notion of having Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate. However, heading into yesterday's final day of Democratic primaries, there appeared to be some cracks in the opposition, as even some of those aligned against Clinton conceded that her close primary finish gave her a strong bargaining chip for the VP slot. And then last night's speeches happened. Obama's has been near universally praised. The pundits have also largely praised Clinton's speech, saying if she had run her campaign this way, she would be the nominee. But the netroots have responded much, much differently. If they were already largely opposed to Obama picking her, Clinton's refusal to withdrawal last night, or even suspend her campaign, is getting more attention than Obama's actual victory. It may have been "her night," as some Clinton insiders insisted, but certainly not in the way they'd hoped.

Making matters worse, the Republican National Committee posted a video today entitled, "Democrats vs. Obama," that includes footage of both Hillary and Bill Clinton attacking Obama, and Hillary offering some praise of John McCain's experience compared to that of Obama's "speech from 2002."





Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

Clinton burned her bridges when she decided to attack a Democrat while praising the man who is running for George Bush's third term.

Andrew Sullivan:

But to have endured the kind of campaign the Clintons ran and concede to her wishes now would be an act of weakness that the Clintons would exploit were he to become president.

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis:

Obama won tonight and she still can't concede. Take a flying leap. You lost. You nasty woman.

With expectations running high that Barack Obama will get enough pledged delegate and superdelegates tonight to make him the presumptive nominee, some of his online supporters, like Andrew Sullivan, are taking a brief moment to celebrate:

Readers are hereby invited to submit quotes, YouTubes, poems, songs, photographs and whatever you dream up to commemmorate the Clintons' departure from presidential politics for, well, at least three years.

But rather than writing Obama-themed poetry, most are now turning their full attention to the next great battle. No, not the general election against John McCain. It's the second stage of their ongoing contest with the Clintons. There's a heated debate taking place over whether Obama should offer Hillary Clinton the vice presidential nomination.

Former Democratic Senate candidate Jim Neal  has a diary up at Daily Kos arguing that Hillary should be the VP for the sake of paty unity.

But most progressives, at least in the blogosphere, are opposed to the so-called "dream ticket." Pam Spaulding encapsulates the anti-Clinton thinking here:

Obama has campaigned on changing DC; Clinton represents everything that's wrong with business as usual in Washington. With all the new registered Democratic voters seeking change, why go this route? Her debt-riddled, consultant class-laden campaign, the obvious sense of entitlement in her universe and the way she her team has polarized voters (and tried to capitalize on open wounds of racism) would only be validated by such a move. As others have said, it presents the same opportunities for Republican smears as if she were at the top of the ticket. They've been waiting and hoping for that opportunity.

In their campaign conference call today, the Clinton campaign's Harold Ickes acknowledged that Florida and Michigan violated DNC rules by changing their primary calendar dates without permission. If taken on their merits, Ickes' comments could be interpreted as admission that seating of half the FL/MI delegates may be the best Clinton can hope for. That leaves Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat to the conclusion that:

The Clinton campaign's only argument now seems to be that yes, rules were broken, but to help us in November, the RBC should seat the delegates anyway. It seems to me that the obvious response by the RBC is to rely on its staff memo which says it can only restore half of the delegates, and that to honor the voters of Florida and Michigan, it will magnaminously do so.

Liberal bloggers seem to have backed off their earlier complaints about Hillary Clinton citing the assassination of RFK as reasoning for her to stay in the Democratic primary. Instead, they are turning their attention to the second half of her argument, which asserted that her own husband, Bill Clinton, didn't wrap up his 1992 nomination until June of that year.

CQ Politics' own Taegan Goddard looks through Bill Clinton's autobiography and finds:

He writes: "On April 7, we also won in Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. On April 9, Paul Tsongas announced that he would not reenter the race. The fight for the nomination was effectively over."

TPM's David Kurtz posts video of Bill Clinton making the same argument and says:

To anyone who remembers past Democratic nomination contests, it will be no surprise that there is nothing unprecedented about the pressure on Hillary to get out of the race.

Brendan Nyhan calls Clinton's argument "bogus."

The Clinton and Obama mouthpieces both tell Talking Points Memo that CNN's report about formal talks over Hillary Clinton as a potential vice presidential nominee are "100% false." 

A web video from Al Jazeera is making the rounds on the liberal blogosphere this morning, most prominently over at Daily Kos. The report comes from Kentucky and features a number of candid interviews with white voters who acknowledge race was the determining factor in their vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. It's a sad and somewhat shocking display, and I'm not just talking about the shot of people auctioning off a can of Manwich:







Kos also links to the Too Sense blog, who provides a little more background on the racial tensions, which appear to deviate somewhat from the common understanding of racism/racial tensions:

After emancipation, coal mining companies sought an advantage over unions by hiring former slaves as scabs since, the unions were racist, wouldn't allow blacks as members. The companies didn't have to fulfill many obligations to this new, unorganized labor force, and a lot of white miners lost their jobs. So it actually makes sense that people would see race relations as a question of pure exploitation; with one side dominating the other. That's the history of the region. 

She was for excluding Michigan and Florida before she was against it. That's the hard truth about Hillary Clinton's latest push to convince the DNC to count the two state's delegates (and popular vote totals) during their May 31st bylaws meeting. In a fundraising email sent to Clinton supporters this afternoon, she writes:

Yesterday, I spoke to voters in Florida, and they are all too familiar with the consequences of not counting every vote.

On May 31, we'll hear the decision from the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee on whether they'll seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida. And while we wait to hear their ruling, you and I must keep fighting together to win every last vote in the final three races.

But as The New Republic's Jonathan Chait blogs today:

It's worth repeating: They supported this "disenfranchisement." Here's a New York Times story from last fall, headlined, "Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States."

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had very different interpretations of what last night's results in Kentucky and Oregon mean. Both sent emails last night to their respective supporters declaring various levels of "victory."

From the Clinton email, entitled, "Every time we win,":

We showed America that the voters know what the "experts" will never understand -- that in our great democracy, elections are about more than candidates running, pundits commenting, or ads blaring.

They're about every one of us having his or her say about the path we choose as a nation. The people of Kentucky have declared that this race isn't over yet, and I'm listening to them -- and to you.

And from Obama's "What we just achieved," :

The polls are closed in Kentucky and votes are being counted in Oregon, and it's clear that tonight we have reached a major milestone on this journey.

We have won an absolute majority of all the delegates chosen by the people in this Democratic primary process.

If all goes as planned, and Hillary Clinton wins by a substantial margin in Kentucky, while Barack Obama wins Oregon by a smaller margin, will anything have changed? Not much, according to most bloggers. There's a good chance Obama will have claimed a majority of pledged delegates, but liberals bloggers have focused themselves on taking down Clinton's popular vote theories, and downplaying expectations for tonight's results.

Talk Left's Jeralyn asks:

June 3 isn't here yet. Hillary has promised to stay in the race until then. Realistically, after tonight, the only big win she may get is Puerto Rico. Here's a question for her supporters: Do you think Hillary should stay in the race after June 3?

In large part, the netroots have turned their attention to John McCain and his continued perceived missteps about Iran, Iraq and other foreign policy issues.

Earlier I posted on how liberal bloggers have not deviated from their long held position that Barack Obama has effectively won the nomination. Many of those same bloggers are conducting a sobering conversation on how Obama overcomes his apparent electoral weaknesses in the face of Hillary Clinton's continued success in states like West Virginia, even if most analysts don't think the wins really "count."

The "how does Obama win the white vote?" may be the most pressing and practical, but at least of equal value in terms of intellectual curiosity is, "Why hasn't Clinton conceded yet?" The theories range from the benign assumption that she simply wants to ride it out, to conspiratorial notions that she wants to destroy the Democratic Party.

CQ Politics' own David Corn and the Huffington Post's Thomas Edsall both look at the possibility that Clinton is staying in the race to best set herself up for a 2012 run should Obama lose to John McCain.

The thing I've been wondering is, are there really Clinton supporters who, thinking rationally, would support a scenario in which she loses the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, but "wins" the nomination by capturing a necessary amount of superdelegates?

Taylor Marsh argues for just such a scenario:

It's time for superdelegates to think long and hard about who can win in November. Clinton keeps winning states Democrats need against John McCain. Obama's way to victory in November depends on reinventing the electoral map. It's risky at best.

Jerome Armstrong, a Clinton supporter, doesn't quite call on superdelegates to overturn the election, but does seem to make a VP argument by highlighting Obama's "serious problem" with voters:

Obama may not even break 30 percent, despite being practically anointed with the nomination?!?! Look, this is a partisan blog. Nearly everyone will come around to supporting the nominee here, but if Obama doesn't recognize the serious problem this presents in the world offline, and his supporters as well, I am speechless (which may not be a bad thing considering).

While much of the media declared Barack Obama the presumptive Democratic nominee after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, progressive bloggers have been declaring the death of Hillary Clinton's campaign for two months. As Liberal Values' Ron Chusid says today:

Clinton's only remaining strategy is to keep trying to move the goal posts, but the referees from the DNC and the superdelegates are not buying it.

Nonetheless, her blowout win last night in West Virginia has much of the media once again discussing far-fetched scenarios in which Clinton takes the nomination. However, bloggers remain convinced the race is over, but are looking forward to how Obama can close what they see as his very real problems with white, "working class," voters. After all, one thing that seems lost in the post-primary analysis is that not only did Clinton hold her projected 30-point victory, she actually built on it. That's both out of character based on past primary victories and especially troubling for Obama supporters that it comes a week after their candidate was all-but-anointed the nominee.

Looking at how Obama has faired with white voters in past primary states, Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat finds:

West Virginia is not an anomaly. Obama's white working class problem is EAST of the Mississippi. It is not just Appalachia. It MUST be addressed. Calling West Virginia names is not going to solve the problem.

Obama has already begun to address this weakness. While Clinton was giving her West Virginia victory speech, Obama was in Missouri talking to swing state voters. The Moderate Voice notices this trend and advises:

The bottom line: it is an Obama vulnerability and if the Obama team is smart they'll make wooing blue collar workers an ongoing project. It is a weaknesss the GOP has most assuredly noticed.

Hillary Clinton brought her case to USA Today arguing that she has the better general election demographics to take on John McCain in the general election:

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."

Since liberal bloggers have proclaimed the end of her campaign en masse, it's not surprising they are treating her latest effort as less than helpful. It's actually irrelevant whether her comments rise (or fall) to the level of racism. They will be interpreted as such by enough Democrats to be damaging to her cause. Of course, exactly what that cuase is at this point remains strikingly unclear.

John Aravosis says Clinton's "race baiting" could hurt African American turnout for Democrats in the fall:

There sure is a pattern emerging here. The Clintons are using racism to try to win the nomination against a black man. And our party leaders are okay with it. (Well, in all fairness, our congressional leaders said that Hillary had better not adopt a "negative tone." They never said she couldn't adopt a racist one.) Is it any wonder blacks aren't voting for Hillary? They shouldn't vote for Hillary, ever again. If our party continues to give a thumbs-up to race-baiting in American politics in the year 2008, race-baiting in our own party, I'd be very surprised if blacks came out for us in November. Nor should they.

Clinton has so enraged the blogging class that she turns even cool headed writers like Reason's Matt Welch into name-calling "Hitlery" bomb throwers. Although, being the reasoned voice that he is, Welch does offer a tantalizing prospect for those who dislike Clinton and are having trouble measuring that personal distaste against what is a fair argument for her staying in the race:

I sincerely hope Hillary takes it all the way to the convention, even if that means I won't be able to watch cable TV for a few months. Few prospects would delight me more than seeing the Clintons stand up on a national stage in front of the political party they've long dominated and then get showered with richly deserved boos.

Even Jennifer Rubin at the conservative Commentary website seems a bit shocked by it all:

All those suspicions about her preference for a potential one-term McCain presidency rather than a two-term Obama one are only going to increase with comments like this.

The liberal blogosphere has been discussing the presumed end of the Democratic primary for nearly two months. And now that the media has "caught up" with their analysis, bloggers are largely reveling in their own perceived insights, with many pointing to this video of NBC's Tim Russert declaring the primary over:







 
Open Left's Chris Bowers:

Even though she has some good states left--West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico--it is extremely hard to see how Clinton catches up now. Obama's overwhelming advantages should start to sink in with the media now, especially given that he beat expectations despite Wright and arugula and whatever. Those attacks are not working.

The Carpetbagger Report's Steve Benen says that by enduring the extended primary, it is Obama who has come out as the "fighter":

Oddly enough, it’s now Obama who can make use of Clinton’s talking points. He’s the one who can persevere. He’s the one who keeps fighting, even after having been knocked down. He’s the durable candidate who bounces back from adversity.

MyDD's Todd Beeton, a Clinton supporters, says it's time to recognize that Clinton cannot win:

I no longer see a real path to victory for Hillary Clinton and I now believe Barack Obama will be the nominee of our party.

Now this isn't in any way to suggest that Senator Clinton should drop out -- you know where I stand on whether this primary has been good or bad for the party -- it's only to say that I now believe that she will. I saw it on Bill Clinton's face as he stood behind Hillary during her speech tonight. I come to this realization with no small amount of disappointment but I'm left hopeful as well. I've seen a new man emerge in Barack Obama over the past few days.

Pundits and bloggers almost unanimously agree this morning that the Democratic nomination battle is over and Barack Obama has won. But sometimes even when a match if effectively over, the opponents must nonetheless finish the game. And that's how Daily Kos' Markos looks at news that Clinton donated another $6 million of her own money to her campaign:

With $11.4 million of her own money invested in the race, and still likely facing campaign debts, this may compel her to stay in the race. She can raise money while spending little to win West Virginia comfortably. Of course, Bill could always do a couple of speeches to pay off that debt rather than have her small-dollar supporters foot the bill. Having made over $100 million the past eight years, and with unlimited earning potential, the Clintons could afford it.

With North Carolina already called for Obama, the media is so far treating tonight's primaries as a victory placing Obama even closer to an official clinch of the Democratic Party's nomination. The lingering question has been whether the extended primary season reveals Obama to be a flawed and weakened candidate heading into the general election. But exit polling from both Indiana and North Carolina show that the potential fallout may be the animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters.

Marc Ambinder:

Forget the horse race numbers for a moment: if the surveys are accurate, the polarization within the Democratic Party has reached critical levels.

Ambinder's analysis shows that nearly 60 percent of Obama supporters in Indiana says they would be "dissatisfied" if Clinton is the nominee, while "nearly two thirds" of Clinton supporters say the same thing about Obama.

The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb:

Sounds to me like a best case scenario for McCain. Hillary probably isn't going to win this thing, and if she were to pull it off there's not much evidence that McCain could beat her in the fall. Right now she outpolls Obama across the board. So the hope is that the Democratic party becomes so divided that even in an atrocious year, a moderate and likable John McCain can steal the election. A split tonight pours $4.00 a gallon gasoline on that fire.

Video of Hillary Clinton's recent appearance on "The O'Reilly Factor" is making the rounds on YouTube (going from 20,000 views to nearly 70,000 in just a few hours) because of Clinton's remarks where she says "God bless us," in reference to being wealthy. Here's the video in question:







In a conference call yesterday, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson denied Clinton said "God bless us," and instead suggested she said, "God blessed us." But on review, Clinton clearly does say "God bless us, and we deserve all the opportunities to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation." The thing is, what's so incriminating about Clinton's statement? Her stated desire to pass on the financial "blessings" she's received to the next generation is a common sentiment amongst those who are the first in their families to have independently accumulated a large sum of wealth. It is a big part of what is known as the American Dream.

While it's clear she is saying "God bless us," it's equally clear to any fair observer that she is saying this not to self-aggrandize her financial assets, but is more likely attempting to diminish her identity as a wealthy person. In other words, she's pandering to those who think it's somehow morally wrong, or uncouth, to be simultaneously rich and liberal. Of course, when Wolfson tries to dodge Clinton's actual remarks rather than accurately explain their context, he makes it appear as if she does in fact have something to hide and/or be ashamed of.

Over at Open Left, Chris Bowers has an interesting post on Hillary Clinton's superior campaign work ethic compared to Barack Obama. Bowers is an Obama supporter, but worries about the gap in their tally of scheduled events before Tuesday's primaries in Indiana and North Carolina:

While Obama is heavily outspending Clinton on paid media, the Clinton campaign is holding far more events on the ground. The differences in Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina are particularly stark, with Clinton holding 181 campaign events in those three states, compared to 80 events for Obama. And the gap appears to keep getting larger.

More campaign events for Clinton doesn't necessarily translate into traction for her campaign, especially if Obama's events are more effective, even if they are less frequent. Nonetheless, Clinton appears to be making a greater effort to seize her apparent "momentum" than Obama is making to cease his "downturn" in the polls and perception. More Bowers:

Stats like these make me wonder if Obama's massive activist corps seems to be working harder than Obama. As an Obama supporter, I have to say that I am not in the least bit happy with these numbers. If he wants to put Clinton away, the campaign needs to start holding a lot more events in upcoming primary states.

Note: Hillary Clinton herself has more events than Barack Obama himself. It is not all Bill Clinton, and some of the Obama events are Michelle Obama. Hillary Clinton is doing more events than OBama in key states. If you think that  ins't a problemn, fine. If you think that is a problem, get annoyed at the Obama campaign, not me.

Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Joe Andrew, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1999, has switched his allegiance from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama. Andrew said he reached the decision without any lobbying from the Obama campaign. He had originally endorsed Clinton back in November 2007, the same day she formally announced her candidacy. Now, not only is Andrew supporting Obama, he's contacting the superdelegates he knows and encouraging them to do the same:

Andrew has also penned a letter to other surrogates urging them to rally behind Obama and end the nomination battle quickly. Andrew writes “a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain,” according to AP.

Liberal Values' Ron Chusid says:

Today’s pick up for Clinton might be one of the more damaging ones, possibly shifting the momentum back in Obama’s favor in time for next week’s vote.

Clinton supporter Taylor Marsh says Andrew and other Obama surrogates are trying to stop the people's will:

What a guy. Clinton "attack dogs." Yeah, that helps. No argument in favor of Obama, just that poor Joe is a-fwaid that if we continue to let the people decide things will get too negative, while making sure it is. So, STOP THE VOTING is the signal. Stop the fight for who's the best candidate to win in November, even though Obama hasn't closed the deal, and Clinton is gaining. No wonder we lose presidential elections.

UPDATE: Andrew discusses his switch in a blog up over at the Huffington Post.

Most polls show Hillary Clinton holding onto a slim advantage in Indiana's upcoming primary, and Barack Obama maintaining a double-digit lead in North Carolina. But a new Insiders Advantage poll now shows Clinton leading Obama by two points in North Carolina. The results do come with major caveats: her lead is within the poll's margin of error and it could be an anomaly, as even Insider Advantage polls from earlier this week show Obama with a double-digit lead. Nonetheless, what happens if Clinton does win both primaries next Tuesday? She is still unlikely to significantly narrow the pledged delegate gap, but two surprising victories would almost certainly help her with super delegates, or at least stop the bleeding. But her real argument then effectively becomes the increasing likelihood that she wins the popular vote and can add in the far less convincing point that the states she's won equate to more electoral college votes in a general election.

Marc Ambinder pours some cold water on the poll's findings:

AN OBVIOUS question about the Insider Advantage numbers is that Obama receives only 65% of the black vote in the sample; also, blacks tend to make up about 40% of the SC electorate - they're 37% of the early voters -- and yet they're 25% of the electorate in the IA poll.

TPM's Eric Kleefeld says the numbers are "demonstrating just how badly the latest controversies have hurt Barack Obama."

Conservatives bloggers have been rooting for Clinton lately and are jumping on the poll results. Ed Morrissey:

If Obama cannot hold North Carolina, it will likely have superdelegates questioning whether the damage has gone too deep for recovery

And The American Spectator's Philip Klein:

[I]f he were to lose Indiana and win North Carolina just narrowly, it would really cement doubts about his canidacy. And if somehow he manages to lose in both states, he could actually see ths nomination slip away.

The Huffington Post's Tom Edsall has a popular post today arguing that the media have switched their allegiances from Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton:

While reluctant to speak on the record, Clinton supporters are very pleased with the overall switch in tone of the coverage, particularly the willingness of the media to explore the question of whether Obama could be a loser in November.

While The Washington Post runs an op-ed from Clinton strategist Geoff Garin arguing that Clinton has been unfairly labeled by the media as running a more negative campaign than Obama. So, who is right?

The right answer might be that neither are entirely correct. Overall, the press does seem to be turning a more critical eye towards Obama, but that does not naturally equate into "positive" coverage for Clinton. From a purely Machiavellian view, it's fair to say that any negative coverage of Obama is a plus for Clinton, but it's not accurate to say the media has jumped ship to Clinton. Liberal and independent voices have long been saying that the media were deeply flawed in their largely unquestioning approach to President Bush in the lead-up to the Iraq War. But many of those same journalists have, until recently, shown a comparable "ignorance is bliss" approach to Obama. The real complaint should be about journalists willfully taking sides without a foundation of empirical data.

Less time needs to be spent on Garin's complaint. Aside from Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton has run the most negative campaign of the primary season. It's true that Obama's operation has done its share of negative campaigning, but that does not mean it has been as negative as Clinton's. In this case, where the public does in fact perceive Clinton as having run the more negative campaign, we can refer to Arnold Schwarzenegger's own prior campaign acknowledgment that "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Blogger reactions to both posts after the jump...

Rooting for your opponents is never a clean task. Many conservative bloggers initially rooted for Barack Obama because they enjoyed seeing Hillary Clinton knocked down from her pedestal and because they enjoyed seeing the diminished stature of Bill Clinton. But now that Obama is the frontrunner for the nomination, many of those same conservatives have flipped back into Clinton's corner. Rush Limbaugh has been fairly consistent is his rooting for Clinton in that he simply wants the nomination battle to go on because it in theory hurts the Democrats' chances of winning the White House this fall. But what of the conservative bloggers who change their preference depending on which Democrat is up and which is down? If you're given two options of political poison, it's probably not wise to hope against hope that one poison will turn out to have an antidote.

McCain supporter John Hawkins notes his own uncomfortable shift on who should win the Democratic primary, but nonetheless gives his 10 reasons why the superdelegates should pick Clinton:

So, when the MSM essentially adopts the Obama campaign's position and argues that Hillary should get out now, even though she can still win, I feel the chivalrous urge, counter-productive though it may be, to defend her just a bit -- especially since Hillary Clinton does have a very strong case to make to the Democratic superdelegates who will decide the winner of the race.

The American Spectator's Philip Klein cautions against fellow conservatives rooting for Clinton:

There's been a lot of Clinton love among conservatives over the past several weeks, because she has been weakening Obama and attacking him from the right. But we should never lose sight of how adaptable Clinton is, and how she will literally say whatever suits her purposes at a given moment.

Liberal bloggers often decry the "advice" of their conservative counterparts, sometimes making accusations of "concern trolls" lurking within their ranks. Today, conservative bloggers are enjoying the fact that the Democratic nomination battle will continue at least another two weeks. And sure enough, some of them are offering their own advice and takes concerning the left's ongoing fight.

NRO's Lisa Schiffren:

Finally — by what reckoning has this primary fight been so nasty? So dirty? So mean? We have all seen much worse.  If anything, until this past month the questions and the charges have been much too dainty. Barack Obama is a stranger to most of the electorate. It is just fine to question any and all of his associations and political views. Failure to do so is malfeasance; failure to highlight his weaknesses as a leader would be some kind of suicide pact for an opponent.

Ed Morrissey says Clinton's first post-victory interview with NBC's "Today" show was "almost pitch-perfect," including a rhetorical point stating that Clinton leads in the popular vote, if the Michigan and Florida primary votes are counted:

It’s almost a pitch-perfect response. She does sound an odd note by blaming Obama for running negative ads after the debate in almost the same breath in which she defends her own advertising as part of the normal electoral process, but her answer to the Gray Lady has the elegance of the obvious. If people keep voting for her more than they do for Obama, why should she stop?

And Red State diarist Dan McLaughlin shows a vote total chart of the past 60 days showing Clinton with 4,261,708 votes to 3,821,668 votes for Obama, a difference of 440,040 votes in Clinton's favor:

Obama can probably still run out the clock, but he's going to end with the worst run-up to the convention since Gerald Ford in 1976. And the real finish line, of course, is in November.

We're still waiting for actual election results, but exit polling is showing that the "negative" campaigning from both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has hurt their standings with voters. While more respondents blame Clinton for the negative tone, it appears to have "tarnished" both candidates, at least according to ABC.

The Donkelphant blog says the negative attacks likely hurt Clinton more in the eyes of PA voters, but since the same data shows most of them made up their minds a week ago, it may not actually affect tonight's results:

It’s interesting that a lot of people decided who they’d vote for a long time ago, but given the recent polls from PA doesn’t this bode well for Hillary despite the perceptions of these negative attacks?

Chris Bowers wants the Democratic primary to end, but gives six, detailed reasons why it won't: Debates, Obama is still attacking Clinton, Clinton still leads in several upcoming states, Clinton is still raising significant funds, uncertainty in Obama created by the Clinton campaign and the "media narrative" that the Democratic Party is divided. 

Everyone from the Drudge Report to traditional polling operations are offering their takes on where Pennsylvania voters stand the day before the polls open in the crucial primary state. 

Talk Left's Big Tent Democrat breaks down the demographics samples in the polls to help explain the differences. In short, the polls have given different statistical weight to how many African-Americans will vote in the primary and how the white vote is breaking down.

Over at Philly.com, Will Bunch says predictions are a bad idea, but adds:

That said, there's one thing that seems impossible to avoid about 32 hours before the polls FINALLY close here in Pa. And that is this, that there is virtually no way that Barack Obama can win here. I don't know the exact margin of victory, but a Hillary Clinton triumph seems certain. 

Former Clinton administration Secretary of Labor Robert Reich has endorsed Barack Obama on his blog:

My avoidance of offering a formal endorsement until now has also been affected by the pull of old friendships and my reluctance as a teacher and commentator to be openly partisan. But my conscience won't let me be silent any longer.

Much to his credit, Reich keeps the value of such endorsements in perspective in his opening statement:

The formal act of endorsing a candidate is generally (and properly)limited to editorial pages and elected officials whose constituents might be influenced by their choice. The rest of us shouldn't assume anyone cares.

Nonetheless,having another longtime Clinton associate break ranks to endorse Obama is certainly not good news for Hillary Clinton and is fueling talk that Clinton should exit the race sooner than later. Clinton supporter Jerome Armstrong takes offense to a growing thread on liberal blogs that sees them accusing Clinton of running her campaign like a "Republican":

As a political operative, it blows my mind that people like Reich are now trying to define tactics as being either Republican or Democrat. And worse, that the measure is whether it offends the style of people like Reich. This kind of advice that leads to the wilderness.

Liberal bloggers appear largely unimpressed with last night's Democratic debate hosted by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. The Huffington Post even went so far as to post video of the crowd heckling Gibson as he segued into a commercial break. Meanwhile, conservative bloggers are focusing their criticism on Barack Obama, whom they say dodged answers on subjects like gun control and taxes. Whether or not Obama was dodging or giving evasive answers, it's clear this is the emerging attack line against Obama: "He's not who you think he is," whether it's discussing religion, elitism, or the actual issues.

The American Prospect's Sam Boyd:

Charlie Gibson says that questions about the flag are "all over the internet" -- along with Pamela Anderson's sex tape, cats with bad grammar, and Rick Astley. Journalism at it's finest.

Daily Kos diarist BarbinMD:

To anyone with a functioning brain, the performance by ABC's Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at last night's Democratic debate was nothing less than an embarrassment.

The Weekly Standard's Brian Faughnan says Obama is not coming clean about his views on gun control. 

Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau reviews the exchange between Obama and Gibson on the Capital Gains Tax and asks for more clarification:

So which is it, Barack?  Is the purpose of taxation so that the government can collect money, or is it to impose some kind of collectivist notion of "fairness"?  We need some clarification, please.

Both critics and supporters of Hillary Clinton, for varying reasons, say her presidency would be a return of sorts to the 1990's. We've seen the downside of that in recent weeks when Clinton's candidacy was damaged after her repeated claims of coming under "sniper fire" in Bosnia while serving as First Lady were proven to be false.
ABC News, which first broke video of Clinton's actual Bosnia landing, now reports that Bill Clinton has been defending his wife's handling of the blunder, but has been flubbing the facts as well, while attempting to downplay his wife's political fumble in what they call a bit of "revisionist history."

AMERICAblog's John Aravosis calls Bill Clinton's comments an "outright lie," and adds:

Hillary actually "misspoke" four times over four months. Then the campaign had their surrogates and press staff fan out in order to defend Hillary's lie as the truth. Now repeated members of the Clinton campaign have claimed that Hillary simply misspoke "once." It's a flat-out lie. They know it's a lie. But they seem to think that you're so stupid, you won't notice. Amazing.

The New Republic's Jason Zengerle says:

It looks like Bill Richardson's endorsement of Obama isn't the only thing the Clintons can't let go of.

Meanwhile, over at the conservative Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin asks:

Does he want his wife to lose? Maybe he’s a hopeless, pathological fabulist. Or maybe he just doesn’t understand how hard it is to get away with easily fact-checked lies in a 24/7 news environment.

Hillary Clinton is getting some praise from conservative bloggers for her call on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies of this year's Summer Olympic Games in Beijing. 

Noting that agreeing with Clinton "happens every so often," The American Spectator's Philip Klein says;

An all out boycott of the Olympics wouldn't be fair to the athletes who worked so hard to get to this point, so let them compete. But were President Bush himself to boycott the games, it would make an important statement on human rights.

Commentary's Jennifer Rubin echoes Klein's sentiment and adds the move is a good sign of Clinton's post-Mark Penn posturing:

This strikes me, aside from the argument’s merits, as just plain smart politics. It shifts the focus off Penn-gate. It sounds a note simultaneously likely to appeal to those on the Right (who like standing up to dictators) and Left (who want more attention to human rights). She was first of the candidates to speak up on this issue and now looks bolder than her opponents. If this is a sign of the post-Penn Hillary, things may be looking up.

The biggest story in the blogosphere is discussion over any fallout from Mark Penn's decision to step down from his role as key adviser to Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

My CQ Politics colleague David Corn says Penn's departure takes a future weapon out of Barack Obama's arsenal.

RedState's Mark Kilmer says Penn should not be blamed for Hillary's campaign troubles:

It's not Penn's fault that she failed to become her party's nominee. She is a lousy candidate. The only reason she was taken seriously is that she was Bill Clinton's wife, and that's frankly not enough. There was nothing Penn could have done.

And the Moderate Voice's Shaun Mullen says Clinton only abandoned Penn in a desperate attempt to win union support:

Shame on him, but shame on the Hero of Bosnia for once again putting loyalty ahead of everything else and only jettisoning the toxic Penn when the Pennsylvania labor unions whose votes she desperately needs in the do-or-die April 22 primary cried foul over the weekend.

TNR's Eve Fairbanks has a well-researched and detailed piece on the Wikipedia editing conflicts between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama supporters. Manipulating Wikipedia's editing system is nothing new. Stephen Colbert has been mocking the loosely run system for more than a year now. But as Fairbanks notes, Wikipedia entires tend to be the second google return for a candidate after their official campaign pages. So, the stakes can arguably be high. From the piece:

There was the day in February when an editor replaced a photo of Hillary on her Wikipedia page with a picture of a walrus. Then there was the day this month when a Hillary supporter changed Obama's bio so that it referred to him as "a Kenyan-American politician." But such sweepingly hostile edits are usually fixed quickly by other Wikipedia users. Often, it's the most arcane distinctions on the candidates' pages that provoke the bitterest tugs-of-war. Recently, an angry battle broke out on Hillary's page over whether to describe Clinton as "a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination" or just "a candidate," since each phrase implies a different shade of judgment on her chances. Five minutes after an Obama supporter deleted "leading" just after 11 p.m. on March 8, another editor put it back. Seven minutes after that, the word was deleted again. Some thirty minutes after that, it was put back. On it went, with different Wikipedia editors debating the significance of Hillary's delegate deficit on her talk page and accusing each other of introducing the dreaded "POV"-- or "point of view," a violation of Wikipedia's most fundamental principle--into the article. At around six in the morning, completing the atmosphere of pandemonium, somebody replaced Hillary's whole page with "It has been reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton has contracted genital herpes due to sexual intercourse with an orangutan."

There were two Bill Richardsons during the Democratic primary season: The pragmatic, tax-cutting, Iraq war supporting, gun rights advocate who was successfully re-elected in a swing state, adding to his already impressive resume. And then there was the Richardson who ran for the nomination: abandoning that record in favor of an immediate and complete withdrawal from Iraq and ditching any previous policy position in the desperate hope of securing a few more votes. Not surprisingly, the strategy did not work. And now comes a report claiming that it was Richardson who argued to the Clintons that Barack Obama was not electable against John MCain.

TPM's Greg Sargent adds:

Now I've got more. A top Hillary adviser confirms this, telling me:

"Bill Richardson repeatedly promised he would not endorse Obama -- and the reason he gave was that Obama wasn't ready -- he couldn't be elected."

TNR's Jason Zengerle says, right or wrong, the Clintons have made this a bigger story than it needs to be:

You'd have thought that the Clinton people would have wanted to downplay the Richardson's endorsement of Obama. And, if they hadn't sqwuaked so much, I bet it would have been a one- or two-day story. But here we are, nearly two weeks after Richardson did the deed, and the press is still talking about it--because the Clintons won't shut up about it. I don't see how this helps Hillary. Seriously, the Clinton people should just let it go.

Red State's Erick Erickson ignores the Richardson flip-flop, but agrees with the view that Obama can't win.

From South Carolina to Texas, the Democratic presidential primary has been rich with examples of Bill Clinton losing his temper or acting in a way that seems to run counter to Hillary Clinton's best interests. So, today's San Francisco Chronicle report on the former president's "tirade" against a California superdelegate, comes less as a surprise, than as another negative example of his role in this campaign:

The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media's unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of the votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama. It ended with him asking delegates to imagine what the reaction would be if Obama was trailing by just 1 percent and people were telling him to drop out.

This new Rasmussen Reports poll showing McCain with a lead, albeit "statistically insignificant," over both Barack (46% to 45%) Obama and Hillary Clinton (45% to 42%) in Democratically-leaning New Jersey, should stoke sentiment that Clinton's continued presence in the race is only helping McCain.

From Blue Jersey:

One notable result is that the percentage of people who view McCain favorably is 61, Obama 58, and Clinton 50. Obama has been improving, Clinton falling, and McCain remaining the same.

TPM's Erik Kleefeld notes how the polling runs counter to Clinton's perceived strengths:

It's interesting to note that Hillary Clinton has a home-region advantage here, but is actually performing behind Barack Obama against McCain — potentially putting a dent in the Clinton camp's argument about being more electable in Democratic base states.

Red State looks at more Rasmussen polls showing positive traction for McCain.

There has been plenty of discussion in the blogosphere over the past week as to whether Hillary Clinton's continued presence in the Democratic primary is bad for the party. Part of that discussion is a debate over whether the discussion itself is being largely created and circulated by the media.

But today's story by Jackie Calmes in the Wall Street Journal (the most discussed political story this morning in the blogs and generating more than 700 Diggs) shows that whether or not the media has pressured Clinton and her surrogates, a snowball effect is beginning to take shape:

Slowly but steadily, a string of Democratic Party figures is taking Barack Obama's side in the presidential nominating race and raising the pressure on Hillary Clinton to give up.

Describing the Clinton campaign as being caught in a Catch 22, the Moderate Voice's Joe Gandelman says:

Her campaign, in various news reports, has made it clear that it seeks to raise Obama’s negatives so that by election time he is unelectable. But the only way to do that is in a way that elicits howls of protest from Obama supporters, hardens party divisions — and raises Clinton’s OWN negatives. A nomination achieved by politically dismembering Obama would be a hallow one. And if she won the general election, she’d likely take office a polarizing figure.

 
 NRO's Jim Geraghty adds:

Obama's picking up speed among the Superdelegates, but Hillary thinks they can nickel and dime their way to narrowing the gap among regular delegates.

More than 1,000 Diggs of the new NBC/WSJ poll showing Hillary Clinton's negative polling numbers rising, while Barack Obama appears largely unhurt by reports of past racially-charged statements made by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. From Chuck Todd:

Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York.

Chris Cillizza declares:

The data suggests that Obama has passed his first major crisis -- not, perhaps, with flying colors, but passed it nonetheless.

However, the poll still reveals some potentially unsettling numbers from Obama's recent speech on race:

[T]he numbers did show that 55 percent of all voters were disturbed by Wright's statements and 32 percent of those who saw Obama's speech on race were "dissatisfied with (the) explanation of association with Reverend Wright."

Steve Benen addresses talk that the poll oversampled African-American voters:

Just as an aside, there’s been talk that the poll intentionally “oversampled African-Americans,” which in turn makes the results less reliable. In this case, that interpretation appears mistaken: “What I think he means is this: In order to get a statistically reliable subset of African-American voters, they over-sampled this category. (Remember, African-Americans account for only about 13% of the US population. So that subset of a regular poll doesn’t really have a large enough sample to ensure a low margin of error.) They then re-weighted these results to come up with topline (everybody put together) numbers that adjusted for that oversampling.”

Both conservative and liberal bloggers are having a field day with Hillary Clinton's false claim to have dodged sniper fire during a mid-90's visit to Bosnia in her former capacity as first lady. Aside from the many accusations that Clinton is simply a "fabulist," many other bloggers are dissecting just how much this will damage her already longshot chances at winning the nomination.

Steve Benen wonders why Clinton would push the issue in the first place:

To reiterate a point I raised over the weekend, this is a classic unforced error. This may seem excessive, but without any exaggerations at all, Clinton already has more foreign policy experience than five of the last six presidents (including her husband). She simply doesn’t need to embellish at all — her background is already sufficient for a credible presidential campaign.

Daily Kos raises questions about Clinton's potential competency as commander-in-chief:

If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it's a lie she's said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.?

And on the right, the assessments aren't any less forgiving.

Michelle Malkin:

This is how a Clinton—take your pick: Hillary, Bill, or Chelsea–makes it through the day. Better living through self-delusion.

Would 28% of Clinton supporters and 19% of Obama supporters defect to John McCain if their first-choice candidate doesn't win the Democratic nomination? Those are the numbers in today's Gallup poll. However, even Gallup cautions against taking their own numbers too seriously:

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate.

So, what the poll seems to be actually illustrating is something anyone following the campaign is already acutely aware of: the longer the Democratic nomination fight continues, the greater the animosity between the Clinton/Obama camps. Rather than actual defections to the Republican side, Democrats are likely more concerned with eroding enthusiasm as the nomination fight becomes more contentious.

Most conservative blogs are happy with the poll numbers, but also not taking them too seriously.

Just One Minute's Tom Maguire puts it this way:

It is easier for elderly and working class whites to defect to the war hero than it is for blacks and hipsters to defect to the old white guy.

While Real Clear Politics' Heather Wilhelm notes the assumption that most conservatives are expected to vote for McCain even if he wasn't their first choice.

Lots of blogger discussion today concerning David Brooks' unscientific assertion that Hillary Clinton now has only a five percent chance of winning the Democratic Party's nomination:

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

TNR's Michael Crowley:

I think it's quite possible that Hillary simply doesn't think Obama is electable. (See Bill and "all that other stuff.") Now that may be a delusion. But if you believed it to be true, you would soldier ahead. She also does have quite a lot of passionate supporters cheering her on, and is roughly tied with Obama in national polls; that's not easy to ignore.

Ann Althouse rightly calls out the hypocrisy of Brooks' assertion that a continued Clinton campaign is the "audacity of hopelessness:

How is what's she's doing any different from what every other candidate does as long as there's a chance? To say it's "selfish" or "narcissistic" to think you're special is to criticize everyone who has what it takes to campaign for the presidency.

Ed Morrissey adds:

Beyond that, the Hillary-must-quit contingent seem to forget one thing: she’s still winning states, and people still want to vote for her. Obama hasn’t won the nomination, nor will he win it in the primaries. Why should she quit under those circumstances? By all indications, Hillary will likely win almost all of the upcoming contests, with just North Carolina as a potential exception.

And though I didn't get around to linking it yesterday, Marc Ambinder's fisking of the VandeHei/Allen piece on Clinton's fatalistic campaign is well worth reading.

Fun fact: Amidst the Florida recount debacle after the 2000 election, Hillary Clinton advocated abandoning the electoral college in favor of a national popular vote.

Fast forward 8 years: Clinton campaign surrogate Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana showed up on yesterday on CNN's "Late Edition" offering the assertion that Hillary Clinton is actually leading the Democratic primary because the states she's won carry the most electoral college votes (Clinton's 219 to Obama's 202, respectively).

Reason's Dave Weigel also notes the electoral college double standard.

The conservative Hot Air takes apart Bayh's logic:

Bayh’s point is stupid, not only because many of the big states where she beat Obama will go blue in November no matter who the nominee is but because, as Jay Cost notes, Democratic primary voters aren’t the same as general election voters.

While MyDD's Todd Beeton says the Clinton camp should use a different line of argument to make their case:

A far more compelling argument to superdelegates, I would think, is to constantly remind them about Michigan and Florida. Not because they're "two of the big four" necessarily but rather because had they moved to legal dates they would have represented two additional early Clinton wins, likely big ones, and the mere fact that Obama would have had to compete there would have meant fewer resources for him to expend in other states.

In a new email sent to Hillary Clinton supporters, Bill Clinton emphasizes the campaign's need to overcome Barack Obama's significant fundraising lead. In what may be a sign of the Clinton camp's financial woes, the former president is asking supporters to contribute as little as $5 (emphasis theirs):

Despite the spirited support from Hillary's best supporters, including you, we are still being outraised and outspent by the Obama campaign. He outspent us by more than $10 million in February alone. Let's close the gap so Hillary can win in Pennsylvania, keep on winning, and be our next president.

Any donation, even as little as $5, can make a difference in this campaign. If you haven't given online yet, now is the time.

The Newshoggers blog attempts to shoot down the notion that Hillary Clinton is staying in the Democratic primary in the hopes that Barack Obama will lose the general election to John McCain, thus setting up a Clinton rerun in 2012:

So the traditional response to a single iteration jackpot, single winner, complete losers game is to go all in for as long as one has the resources to play in the hopes that something shakes the right way for you just as the jackpot is declared.  The odds suck, but bad odds are better than zero odds.  So I don't think Clinton is playing for 2012 as that scenario does not make a whole lot of sense, she is playing for now with a good strategy given a horrendous prospect of success.

Pollsters and news outlets are looking at how the Jeremiah Wright controversy has hurt Barack Obama, and helped Hillary Clinton, in Pennsylvania. Some blogs, like Talking Points Memo, are also picking up on a new poll showing Clinton with a 16 pont edge in the state.

But Pat Dollard says the Obama campaign plans to keep campaigning in Pennsylvania, even if the results have favored them so far. The logic being that if Obama can keep the final results relatively close, Clinton will not be able to put a dent in Obama's 100 delegate edge:

For now, however, the plan is to still compete heavily in Pennsylvania, according to an Obama advisor. In past contests, the more Obama has campaigned throughout a state, the more he narrows Clinton’s lead. But recent polling shows that the opposite has been the case in Pennsylvania, so far. Pennsylvania is also a closed primary, which negates Obama’s advantage with independents.

From the AP:

The New York senator, who is in a tight race with Illinois Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, struck several sorry notes at an evening forum sponsored by the National Newspaper Publishers Association, a group of more than 200 black community newspapers across the country.

Ed Morrissey makes a key distinction about Clinton's apology. It's a commonly used tactic by Washington politicians; warping language to imply a certain meaning while providing yourself with a buffer against actual admission:

This doesn’t quite make it, although it comes close. Once again, we see the high-wire political apology in play — I’m sorry some took offense.

Breaking news tonight that Geraldine Ferraro has stepped down from Hillary Clinton's finance committee. It seemed close to inevitable that Ferraro would either be asked to resign, or would do so voluntarily. But for many liberal bloggers, too much damage has been done for a simple resignation to remedy the situation.

Over at AMERICAblog, Joe Sudbay writes:

You know how the traditional media took awhile to fully grasp that Bush lied about going to war? I think many Democrats have had the same problem trying to grasp the reality of the Clinton's race-baiting campaign.

While at Comments From Left Field, Kyle E. Moore writes:

[B]efore you get any misconceptions of the resignation, this is not exactly a matter of class and grace.

For an example of resigning with grace, I think we need to turn to Obama’s former foreign policy advisor Samantha Power who called Hillary Clinton a “monster” when she thought she was off the record.

Meanwhile, conservative blogger Jim Geraghty brings some intellectual honesty to the debate over whether Obama's race has helped him as a candidate. What he leaves out, is that early in the campaign, Obama was not winning a majority of African American voters. But there's little doubt that many Democrats had an initial affinity for Obama in part because of his status as a racial minority. And as his viability as a candidate has grown, so has his support amongst black voters -- a critical voting bloc in Southern states:

What do you call a white man who has the charisma, the humor, the laid back charm and ease in front of an audience that Barack Obama has? You call him "Mike Huckabee." And as we just saw, that will take you pretty far, but not quite far enough in a Republican presidential primary. And he had about ten years of executive experience, not four in the Senate.

Former Democratic VP candidate Geraldine Ferraro has refused to back down after igniting controversy yesterday following her assertion that Barack Obama owes his political ascension to his race. In a follow-up interview with the Daily Breeze, Ferraro offers this take:

"Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up," Ferraro said. "Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

Though the Democratic nomination fight has seemingly become a battle over which campaign has to fire the most advisers, it's hard to imagine how Clinton benefits from keeping Ferraro around. It certainly can't be to remind voters that the last woman on a presidential ticket was part of one of the larger losing landslides in history. And does Clinton really want to remind voters of her campaign's rocky relationship with black voters during this primary? Though maybe it's not African Americans she's trying to reach out to. Some bloggers believe Clinton's continued loyalty to Ferraro may be a signal to white voters.

Daily Kos diarist DHinMI:

Ferraro is trying to appeal to insecure white women who believe they've put in their time and now they're entitled to get their woman president, and nobody should be allowed to take away their presidency and give it to the Black guy who hasn't earned it.

The New Republic's Issac Chotiner:

Surely she had become an embarassment to the Clinton campaign, I thought; we won't be seeing her much anymore.

But wait, here she is on Good Morning America (according to Time's summary):

Said “every time someone opens their mouth” to speak about Obama they are accused of racism. Stood by the comments, and is “absolutely not” sorry she made them.

She stopped by CBS's Early Show, too; clearly the Clinton folks see some benefit in stirring up these issues.

The mid-90's trip to Bosnia that Hillary Clinton's campaign has cited as an example of her foreign policy credentials mostly came down to deciding where next to eat. At least, that's what actor/comedian Sinbad, better known to some as The Cherokee Kid, tells Mary Ann Aikers:

I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place'.

Conservative TownHall blogger Amanda Carpenter links to the piece as well as a very 90's pictures of Clinton singing on stage with Sinbad, musician Sheryl Crow and daughter Chelsea:

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait adds:

When your main campaign theme is foreign policy experience, and that experience is persuasively refuted by a comedian, it's time to find a new theme.

Sinbad is no stranger to politics. He's an Obama supporter and co-starred in the 90's comedy "Jingle All the Way," with California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

UPDATE: That's actually former Secretary of the Army Togo West, not Sinbad, standing next to Sheryl Crow, second from the left. Multiple citations identified it as Sinbad. I confess to thinking it didn't look 100% like the "Houseguest" auteur, but attributed that to it being a low-resolution photo. Not to mention the other three celebrities (Crow, Chelsea, Hillary) do look quite different in their mid-90's incarnations...

Josh Marshall looks at this Globe and Mail piece which reports on the Obama/NAFTA flap. According the piece, Canadian Prime Minister's chief-of-staff Ian Brodie reportedly told journalists it was a Clinton staffer who called to reassure the Canadian government that promised changes to NAFTA in the Democratic primary were not to be taken seriously. Of course, the story coming out of that discussion originally claimed it was an Obama staffer who made the call, which the Obama campaign strenuously denied:

So was Hillary bashing Obama for what her own campaign had done? Did they both do it? Was it all a set up? I think the overarching story here is that friendly governments should not interfere in our elections.

The Washington Post reports that even in victory, many of Hillary Clinton's campaign staff are still eager to have Mark Penn off the stage:

Many of her advisers are waging a two-front war, one against Sen. Barack Obama and the second against one another, but their most pressing challenge is figuring out why Clinton won in Ohio and Texas and trying to duplicate it. While Penn sees his strategy as a reason for the victories that have kept her candidacy alive, other advisers attribute the wins to her perseverance, favorable demographics and a new campaign manager. Clinton won "despite us, not because of us," one said.

Obama supporter Andrew Sullivan says:

It's Bush-Cheney all over again, but less disciplined, more narcissistic, more cynical.

And Carol Platt Liebau over at the Town Hall blog wisely asks:

Reporters and political junkies may lap up every juicy detail about what's gone (or going) wrong, who's to blame, and who's blaming whom.  But in the end, isn't this all just a really big distraction -- one that's likely only to grow worse were Hillary to win?

Meanwhile, Kos catches this nugget, sure to anger many progressives, that former DLC Chair Bruce Reed is working for the Clinton campaign.

Appearing this morning on CBS's "The Early Show," Hillary Clinton marked her comeback victories in Ohio and Texas by raising the possibility of a "dream ticket" with Barack Obama ... as her vice president. Obama appeared after Clinton and downplayed the possibility, stressing his overall delegate lead. Nonetheless, the story has caught fire in the blogosphere.

Michelle Malkin, under the heading, "The Glacier-Messiah ticket?" writes:

Spine-chilling to contemplate. But also ridiculous. About as likely as a McCain-Tancredo ticket. I mean, come on. Hillary Cackle Count: 1.2

Meanwhile, Say Anything speculates:

That would certainly serve to unite the left against McCain who is still suffering from lackluster support from his base.

And Wonkette, as usual, puts things in perspective:

Of course, the chances of Obama returning the favor if he's the nominee are pretty much zero because he knows that she will try to poison him the day after he's sworn in.

You can watch the Clinton video here.

A number of prominent liberal blogs are linking to new Zogby poll numbers showing Hillary Clinton ahead in Texas and deadlocked in Ohio. However, many of these same blogs have (correctly) questioned Zogby's accuracy during this primary season. Nonetheless, the poll continues to fuel the debate over if and when Clinton should drop out.

TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat says:

I like to laugh at John Zogby and the outfits that cite him as a serious pollster. And this post is no different.

MyDD's Todd Beeton believes in the Clinton surge, but not the argument that national security concerns are driving it.

Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias believe he has a better grasp on the "reality" of the  Democratic primary than the two-thirds of Democrats who want Clinton to stay in the race if she wins either Texas or Ohio:
 

I don't think she and Bill are that out of touch with reality, and I don't think that most of her key supporters are either. If her results today are good enough to give her a realistic shot at winning the nomination through winning primaries, then of course she'll stay in. But if the delegate math isn't there, then I think she'll get out.

Of course, Ygleasias is missing a separate point here. Two-thirds of Dems polled aren't saying they think Hillary can win the nomination if she picks up Texas or Ohio, they're simply saying they think she should stay in the race. That sentiment could originate from a number of factors: Clinton supporters who just want to see her go on, even when logic dictates otherwise; uncommitted Democrats who want to see Obama vetted more before facing John McCain; and other factors folks inside the Beltway might not, God forbid, have picked up in their philosophy/poli-sci classes.

Meanwhile, Ed Morrrissey, now at his new home over at Hot Air, predicts Clinton will stay in the race and says of the Dems who want Clinton to stay in the race:

That doesn’t exactly give a ringing endorsement to Barack Obama, who may wonder why a 13-state win streak isn’t enough for 45% of Democrats

ABC News charges the Clinton campaign with "going nuclear" in their new campaign ad asking viewers "in ominous undertones," which candidate they'd prefer answering the White House situation room telephone at 3:00am:




However, a number of blogs have dug up this ad from Walter Mondale's 1984 primary campaign against Gary Hart. If it sounds familiar, that's because the ad was produced by Clinton's media consultant, Roy Spence



The Moderate Voice disagrees with the "nuclear" characterization:

There have been a few comments to this being Hillary Clinton’s nuclear cloud ad, similar to LBJ’s during the 1964 Johnson-Goldwater campaign for the Presidency. But this doesn’t come close. It’s a basic pitch, again, making the argument that Americans would be safer with Hillary Clinton’s experience.

And, of course, it's not the first ad attacking Clinton this campaign to reference 1984:

Hillary Clinton has a blog post up at The Huffington Post on child poverty. The most interesting part for once is the 700+ comments, which are decidedly mixed.
Some anti-Hillary comments accuse the positive comments as being Clinton staff plants, while others accuse her of only caring about the issue because she's running for president. Clinton has faced a serious disconnect from the liberal blogosphere since before she made her candidacy official. Now that it appears to be reaching its end, it's fair to ask if Hillary could have closed the netroots gap with a more concerted effort earlier in the campaign? Short of apologizing for her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, I'm guessing the answer is "no."

Two Hillary Clinton stories are dominating the blogs this afternoon.

Dana Milbank's account of yesterday's breakfast chat with Clinton campaign strategist Harold Ickes and campaign spokesman Phil Singer; and the New York Times' story on Clinton's "five point plan" to attack Barack Obama before next week's Ohio and Texas primaries.

Asking for a "little more butter with that popcorn," Red State's streiff declares:

Now that power has started to slip from the grasp of the ersatz political jalopy constructed by the Clintons, they are fast finding out who are their real friends. It is becoming increasingly clear that the national media is not among them.

Of course, the Clinton campaign wouldn't disagree, as a considerable amount of their time lately has been devoted to accusing the media of favoring Obama over Clinton. On the Clinton's comparing Obama's foreign policy experience to that of President Bush, AMERICAblog's John Aravosis writes:

Does she really want to go there? I mean, she was the one who supported giving Bush the authority to go into Iraq - not Obama. Actually, I think she wants a fight on anything she can get at this point.

Marc Ambinder confirms blogger speculation by reporting that Hillary Clinton is loaning her campaign $5 million dollars. The Nation's Ari Melber adds:

The timing suggests that the campaign has been much tighter on cash than most observers realized. If Clinton had the resources to compete through February, she could have delayed the loan by a few days, and federal rules would not have required its disclosure until March. But announcing the loan now -- after narrowly losing Tuesday's delegate battle and watching Obama raise $32 million from over 220,000 new donors in January -- projects financial weakness at a pivotal time for Clinton.

Jonathan Allen has some more reporting to share, this time with a pair of Hillary Clinton related bits.

From the Clinton campaign's talking points on Obama's Georgia Victory:

GEORGIA

Unlike the Obama campaign, the Clinton campaign never dedicated significant resources to Georgia.

Sen. Obama spent over $500,000 dollars on ads on television and radio; we never went up on TV

The Obama campaign has 9 offices in Georgia. The Clinton campaign only has 2.

Sen. Obama has had staff and significant campaign operation across the state for 8 months. Sen. Clinton only deployed staff to the state in the last couple of weeks.

Polls have consistently showed Sen. Obama with wide lead over Sen Clinton. That lead has only widened over time.

And from NOW president Kim Gandy on Tennessee:

Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women and a Clinton backer, was in Tennessee yesterday and said Volunteer State residents are thrilled to be getting so much attention. That included visits from Bill, Hillary and Chelsea. She said she heard out of Knoxville today that, based on anecdotal exit polling, there should be good returns in eastern Tennessee for Clinton.

Blind dates are always bad ideas, but that didn't stop Fox News from trying to play matchmaker.

During yesterday’s broadcast of Fox News Sunday, guests John McCain and Hillary Clinton were briefly, and awkwardly, on screen simultaneously. The event didn’t seem staged by the two campaigns, so much as by Fox News. After all, why would either candidate want to be ushered into a forced moment of bipartisan banter 48 hours before heading into a contentious primary-election battle?

Howard Kurtz did some follow-up with the Fox News producers, and finds:

Advisers to Hillary Clinton and John McCain felt misled yesterday when "Fox News Sunday" host Chris Wallace prodded the candidates into talking to each other after they had agreed to be interviewed separately.

Kurtz also notes the McCain campaign was “particularly unhappy” about the unscheduled appearance.

Powerline’s Ed Morrissey says Fox owes both candidates an apololgy:

Part of the conservative complaint against McCain is his deference to Democrats while treating conservatives much more harshly. That got put on full display yesterday, as the two exchanged not just pleasantries but assurances that a general-election contest between the two would be "respectful". Republicans may want someone less inclined to put the gloves on against Hillary than taking them off against fellow Republicans. Both candidates got taken by surprise, but Hillary hasn't got Democrats wondering if the Clintons can fight hard enough against Republicans. Fox and Wallace owe both candidates an apology.

Hillary Clinton's campaign choke-up that I posted on earlier has now become the most-discussed story in the blogs today.

Hot Air:

They must be genuine. Because given the abuse she’s going to take for this remarkably coincidental display of emotion the day before a do or die election, there’s no way she’d do it on purpose.

John Aravosis over at AMERICAblog:

It certainly isn't the first time Hillary has been faced with emotional scenes. But I just don't ever recall her being someone who teared up once a month. Which leads me to ask, what happened to change all of that? What changed in her at such a profound level, and why, as to make her one of those people who tears up? Or, is it all just a show? Either way, the question is actually relevant in determining just who Hillary Clinton is.

And Carpetbagger Report, says this may be more of a natural phenomenon:

Look, these candidates, all of the ones who are really giving it their all, are enduring a grueling, painful process, with very little sleep, poor nutrition, and intense, constant pressure. Given how exhausting this is, no one should be surprised if a candidates attends a personal event and gets a little choked up. These are not in any way “Muskie moments.”But if recent history is any guide, this is going to be the biggest political story of the day anyway. Ugh.

Chicago Tribune reporter (and one of my former college roommates) Jason George is on the trail with the Clinton campaign in Connecticut, where the New York senator has once again teared up at a campaign event:

Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.

Penn Rhodeen, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clinton's eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, Rhodeen was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.

"Well, I said I would not tear up; already we're not exactly on the path," Clinton said with emotion after the introduction.

George compares the event to Clinton's tearing up in New Hampshire shortly before that state's primary rebooted her campaign. So, was this just a genuine moment caught by a national political reporter on the scene, or has Clinton been reading some of those polls showing Obama making headway in California and other key Super Tuesday states?

Much discussion is being had today over Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy standing together during last night's State of the Union address. In particular, the biggest headline from the speech today is Obama's snubbing of Hillary when she walked over to shake Kennedy's hand.

But as my CQ Politics colleague Jonathan Allen points out, the Kennedy/Obama roadshow is in fact on its second year. From last year's SOTU:

A hilarious mix of Tom Cruise's recently-leaked Scientology video, and Hillary Clinton's emotional moment before the New Hampshire primary:
Hat Tip: Sullivan

Critics of the Clintons often seem more opposed to the political couple's personalities, rather than their specific policy positions. To that end, the Wall Street Journal today shares some empathy with Barack Obama after the Illinois senator complained that Bill Clinton was distorting Obama's record on the campaign trail. But the sympathetic notions only go so far:

The Illinois Senator is still a young man, but not so young as to have missed the 1990s. He nonetheless seems to be awakening slowly to what everyone else already knows about the Clintons, which is that they will say and do whatever they "gotta" say or do to win.

Needless to say, conservative bloggers are loving it.

Over at Newsbusters, Matthew Sheffield writes:

One of the refreshing things about the contest this year on the Democratic side is that we are finally seeing the Clintons receive the scrutiny that they ought to have during the time Bill Clinton was running and serving as president.

And perpetual Clinton hater Andrew Sullivan adds:

I've long believed that the core truth of the 1990s was as follows: the main culprits of the culture war were the emerging Christianists, but the Clintons made things far worse, and unnecessarily so, by the style of their politics and the extent of their narcissism.

CNN reports that John Edwards and Hillary Clinton met backstage after last night's debate for a private discussion, but none of the specific details of that conversation were divulged. Is Edwards angling for another VP spot, making amends for his earlier confrontations with Hillary, or were the two just chatting?

Shakespear's Sister writes:

I've heard/read a bit of chatter recently about the whole Democratic ticket coming from the top three, but I find that highly unlikely, unless Edwards gets the nomination. If Hils gets it, I'd put money on her choosing Bayh as a running mate. If Obama gets it, I'm less sure about whom he'd choose, but I can say with some confidence it wouldn't be either of the two people with whom he shared a stage last night.

James Joyner wonders why Edwards is still in the race and Matt Stoller notes how “vicious” the campaign debate has become.

The tide appeared to be turning against Hillary Clinton in Nevada, with Obama’s culinary union endorsement and Bill Clinton’s emotional confrontations with reporters. But after her victory there today, Clinton supporters can argue she has recaptured her party’s momentum.

But bloggers say not so fast...

Andrew Sullivan, who has been accused to having an anti-Clinton obsessions by some liberal bloggers, concedes she won the vote with Hispanics, which he says will help her in California, but adds:

It was still close, though: 51 to 45, and completely in line with the last polls.

Ed Morrissey also plays down Clinton’s victory:

Given the strong demographics in her favor, this isn't exactly an impressive showing. Obama will get almost as many delegates, and people will question her strength, especially after South Carolina's primary if Obama wins it as projected.

And the Politico’s Ben Smith adds this bit on how Clinton used Obama’s culinary union endorsement to her advantage:

One thing to keep in mind: The charges of intimidation were, at one level, a strategy for explaining a loss; but they may also have served to stir up support among non-union workers in the casinos and others around Nevada. So, as much an electoral strategy as a post-electoral spin.

Last night I asked:

My first thought is, did the tears put her over the top? Is playing the victim Clinton's ace card? Remember, Rick Lazio's overly-aggressive moment is what put Clinton over-the-top in her first Senate race.

And, sure enough, the biggest story in the blogosphere today is Maureen Dowd’s column, asking, “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?”

From the column:

She won her Senate seat after being embarrassed by a man. She pulled out New Hampshire and saved her presidential campaign after being embarrassed by another man. She was seen as so controlling when she ran for the Senate that she had to be seen as losing control, as she did during the Monica scandal, before she seemed soft enough to attract many New York voters.

The Protein Wisdom blog thinks female New Hampshire voters were “womanipulated.”

Balloon Juice rejects the theory, and writes instead:

I still, at this point, do not know what Obama stands for other than “change” or something “new.” I honestly can not believe he has been able to get away with it this long, and I assure you, he will not in a general election. So that is why, in my opinion, Hillary won. She stands for something- something people can understand and grapple with. Not some lofty rhetoric about change that moistens loins at the American Prospect, but actual policy positions.

Michelle Malkin says Hillary’s “Access Hollywood” appearance probably helped.

Many liberal bloggers are being surprisingly kind to Hillary Clinton in the first moments since the AP and some news networks have called New Hampshire for her. My first thought is, did the tears put her over the top? Is playing the victim Clinton's ace card? Remember, Rick Lazio's overly-aggressive moment is what put Clinton over-the-top in her first Senate race.

Daily Kos’ Markos:

And the race is on! Hillary Clinton just showed everyone who had called this thing for Obama that, in fact, there's a much longer race in store. How exciting! No coronation this year. The candidates are going to have to earn their victory the old fashioned way -- one vote at a time.

And from the right, Red State’s Erik:

I think Hillary came back. Now we're going to hear the press get back on the bandwagon lest they get their throats slit. We'll be treated to "Come Back Kid" stories for a few weeks because the press is so predictable.

Some progressive bloggers are chiming in on early New Hampshire returns showing Hillary Clinton leading Barack Obama 40 percent to 35 percent.

Daily Kos' Markos Moulitsas:

If Hillary holds on, this thing will go a long way. All that money that is drying up for her? The spigots will open. And the rest of the country might have a say in this thing after all. The Obama people are fervently praying for these numbers to turn around. There is a lot at stake here.

MyDD is posting on what they hope is a downward trend for Clinton as the votes continue to come in.

Chris Bowers goes with a similar thread, writing:

Clinton is certainly doing well so far, much better than expectations. Still, one would expect that the larger, urban precincts haven't reported yet, and that those precincts should favor Obama. Also, there is no way that Edwards beats Clinton now. CNN has officially projected him 3rd.

The blog discussion is dominated today by this Drudge flash item speculating on whether Hillary Clinton will withdraw from the Democratic primary if she loses in New Hampshire tomorrow night.

However, most of the discussion seems to mock both Matt Drudge and the notion that Clinton would drop out, regardless of how she performs in NH.

While conservative blogs have no love for Clinton (unless they are scared of Obama), some of them are comparing this story to last week’s inaccurate Politico report claiming that Fred Thompson was about to drop out of the race after Iowa.

From the right, Captain’s Quarters:

It didn't work with Fred Thompson, and it won't work with Hillary Clinton.

Liberal leaning Wonkette asks mockingly:

Have you ever seen a sadder Drudge Report Siren?

And more Thompson comparisons from Outside the Beltway:

Even aside from the fact that this is on the Drudge report, this strikes me as wildly implausible. Unlike earlier reports that Fred Thompson would drop out after poor finishes in the early states, there’s just no reason for Clinton to quit. As noted in the previous post, she’s got more cash on hand than Obama and Edwards combined. And she’s got huge leads in several big states.

John Edwards is giving his post-caucus speech right now. He is spinning a third-place tie well, talking about “showing backbone,” against Clinton and Obama, whom he says thought they could buy the election.

Liberal bloggers are certainly pulling for an Edwards second-place showing, both to keep his own campaign above water, and, perhaps, more importantly, to drown out Hillary.

Matt Yglesias:

It looks like he's likely to wind up in second. Certainly, I hope he hands on to it, both for the blow it'll do to Hillary Clinton's chances and also because he deserves to do well. It's very hard to see how his candidacy can stay viable without an Iowa win, but he's had a huge -- and entirely positive -- impact on the race.