The New Republic

It's worthwhile to note that the poll probably underestimates Obama's support among blacks. It only has him getting 68% while Hillary polls at 20%. If you assume that he'll get in the neighborhood of his usual 80-85%, it's even closer.

- nlaverty4

February 25, 2008 at 9:06am

To be fair to Hillary, 11 points is still a pretty big lead for Hillary.

- rhubarbs

February 25, 2008 at 9:36am

Hey Rhubarbs--As a gleeful, if irrationally giddy Obama supporter, I gotta ask: "What's fair got to do with it?"  Just kidding.

- StraussGuy

February 25, 2008 at 10:31am

Yeah, even if Obama can halve her lead, she'll still win comfortably. Well, it's all about the delegates, now...

- benjamin81

February 25, 2008 at 10:42am

30% of Ohio is still undecided. Undecided have broken for Obama. tick tick tick Hillary, you are the Wile E. Coyote of American politics, standing in mid air with your feet frantically running for ground, someone should buy you a little yikes sign for you to hold up before you plunge.

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 10:46am

Strauss, I'm with you on Obama. Or, rather, I think Hillary is likely to be as bad a president as George W. Bush, and since Obama is the only other candidate in the race ... But an 11 percent lead is still a healthy lead. Hillary's early leads in every state were based entirely on name recognition and voter ignorance. Someone's gotta start with the lead, and in this case that was Hillary. But that kind of early lead never holds up. So she was always gonna see her lead collapse as the election neared, as she has done in every state so far.

The real race has been between Hillary's strategy of managing the rate at which her leads evaporate and Obama's strategy of finishing strong when he starts from behind.

The scary irony for Democrats is that Hillary, if nominated, would enter the general election without any lead to burn, whereas Obama would enter with a lead to hold. This race is not testing either candidate in the conditions he or she will face against John McCain. Can Hillary come from behind? We'll never know until she has to do it against McCain. Can Obama maintain a lead across the middle period of a race? We'll never know until he has to do it against McCain.

- rhubarbs

February 25, 2008 at 11:18am

The thing is, if Obama keeps it under 10 points in Ohio and gets more delegates in Texas (which looks to be the case unless things change drastically), how can Hillary claim it as a win? There's a good chance that she'll be just as far back delegate-wise then as now.

- nlaverty4

February 25, 2008 at 11:39am

Delegates don't matter.

And if Obama can't win the overall Democrat vote as registered in state primaries (as opposed to caucuses), you are pretty delusional if you think he can win the general. He's only won white Democrats once, and never won Hispanic Democrats (no, not in Virginia, either, which was all Hispanics and a small sample). While Texas is neck and neck, the last I checked he was not winning Democrats and losing Hispanics 2:1, which suggests that all his support comes again from independents and Republicans playing in the Dem's party.

He's winning now on the strength of white independents and Republicans, which is not a certainty in the general. He's lost the base Democrats consistently, except liberals and blacks. That's not a good coalition to take against McCain.

- jmkerr

February 25, 2008 at 11:58am

Ohio will be where Hillary reasserts herself, and wins.

Frankly, Obama is being propelled by a lot of irrational exuberance, driven by giddy boosters and a media desperate for something new & different. And this bubble will pop, just like it popped for Internet IPOs and subprime CDOs. Why? Cause there is not enough substance to justify the hype & hyperbole. Obamas major accomplishments are thin - Harvard Law Reivew, forward on his HS basketball team. I mean, come on.. The guy is too green. He needs to wait his turn, just like Hillary did.

True Dems  will recognize this, and recoil from  Obama, and his children's crusades. Frankly all Obama has won thus far is boutique states. PA, OH and TX  are not boutique. And they will vote for Hillary

Hillary in 2008!!!

- tembrach

February 25, 2008 at 12:08pm

tembrach, you have a point about Obama having a thin record of accomplishment.

But while that may be an effective argument against Obama, it is not an argument for Hillary. Her "accomplishments" are just as thin as his. She hasn't actually done very much, and her record of accomplishment has more items on the "failure" side of the ledger than the "success" side.

Oh, and saying that Hillary "waited her turn" is simply not true. It is a falsehood. Three long-serving Democratic women legislators were preparing to run for New York's open Senate seat when Hillary shoved them both aside to seize the nomination as a perverse form of alimony. If Hillary had been in the business of "waiting her turn" and earning her political advancement, she'd be county executive of Westchester County right now, looking for an open House seat or preparing to run for state AG. There are at least five other Democratic women who've put in more time, and have better records of accomplishment, than Hillary. Why Hillary and not them?

It's just not reasonable to prefer Hillary to Obama on the grounds of accomplishment and turn-waiting.

- rhubarbs

February 25, 2008 at 12:30pm

Rhubarbs

yes, you are correct that Hillary has "Jumped" over other worthy NY Women (Nita Lowey jumps to mind)/

Having said that, Hillary has been on the front lines for 16 plus years. And in addition. she was first lady in AK.

I think this has given her experience in  the political give and take. Whatever the right wing throws at her, she will be prepared.

Barack does not have this base of  experience. I think he will be rattled by the viciousness of the right wing. And we will either retreat or lash out. Hillary, in contrast, will be fully prepared.

I might be wrong, but I don't think Barack has the emotional calluses (for lack of a better word) that being president requires. Especially when dealing with people like Rush and posters in FreeRepublic.

Barack does not have this base of  experience. I think he will be rattled by the viciousness of the right wing. And we will either retreat or lash out. Hillary, in contrast, will be fully prepared.

I might be wrong, but I don't think Barack has the emotional calluses (for lack of a better word) that being president requires. Espeically when dealing with people like Rush and posters in FreeRepublic.

- tembrach

February 25, 2008 at 2:30pm

Tembrach, do you actually think that Obama doesn't know how awful the Right will be?  You seem to know it; is he the only one that doesn't?   That he is going to be stunned, somehow?   ANd if Hillary is such a damn good fighter why is she losing to Obama?

And you really consider VA and WI boutique states?  Also, since you use that word a lot, please define it.  Maybe I misunderstand what you mean.

- boneill

February 25, 2008 at 2:54pm

Hillary is losing to Barack, for the same reason that Lieberman lost to Ned Lamont in the CT Dem primary of 2006. Those voting in the primaries tend to be more committed to the left than those who vote in the general election. Hillary is seen as compromised by the left, primarily because of her 2002 vote in favor of going to war in Iraq.

Boneill

I hope that Barack can fight the right wing. But when I saw him complain about Hill and Hillary ganging up on him for SC, I became concerned.  The Clintons are small potatoes, compared to the hard right.

A Boutique state is small ,  well educated, with a strong middle class white demographic.

I am not slagging such folks. That’s my tribe. In addition,  my state (CT) went for Barack

But I fear that  Barack is Ned redux. What assurance can you give me that Barack isn’t?

- tembrach

February 25, 2008 at 3:56pm

tembrach, there is no sure thing in politics, or life. how can anyone assure us that Bill won't have another bimbo eruption? Or that her tax returns are really very messy (why won't she disclose them?)

these are called elections, if you want a sure thing, move to China and I can tell you who the next 3 Presidents will be (unless they go out and shoot one first)

- blackton

February 25, 2008 at 4:12pm

Wait...let me get this straight tembrach. Being first lady in AK is adequate experience to be POTUS? How about the ability to run on her own record versus cashing in on Bill's legacy to carry her water for her? How about the ability to run a successful primary campaign against an "upstart" with only 20 years of public service? How about the ability to organize a campaign that is consistent and doesn't pander to the right (as she has been doing since becoming senator)? How about being able to lead her campaign team to run an effective campaign on her merits instead of Bill's? If she can't do those things against Obama then how can one expect her to be ready for POTUS on day one? Her legislative accomplishments are nothing to brag about at the national level and it reflects in her not actually mentioning much of her record of accomplishments in that regard. Her only line of defense, and one you keep trumpeting like the faithful bugler of the falling calvary, is she's prepared to fight the far right because she had to do it as first lady? Give me a friggin' break already.

- singlespeed

February 25, 2008 at 4:22pm

Tem, Hill today is crying about the health care fliers.  It is politics.  

As for Lamont, it is my understanding that very, very few people voted in the primary, and the ones who did were fired up by MoveOn-type passion.   These primaries are generating awesome numbers, the majority of whom are voting for Barack right now, so I am not worried these numbers will go away.  

So, are Texas, OH and PA the only non-boutique states in the country?  And, even if he IS only winning boutique states, don't they seem to be the majority of states and voters?  

- boneill

February 25, 2008 at 4:29pm

I think Obama will more than likely wind up with the nomination, and that is just fine with me. But I think we really should give Hillary a lot of credit, rather than simply predicting her demise or criticizing the way she ran her campaign.

Win or lose, Hillary has made a major impact on our political system and history. Never again will a woman, with a desire to run for president, ever have to feel hesitant because she will not be taken seriously.  She has opened the door for competent women who enter politics to strive for the top job with the same expectations and gusto as any man.  A female candidate for president will not be considered a novelty any longer, and her primary campaign will be considered a formidable force to be dealt with by any man running against her. No longer will we ever be able to say "if" a woman ever becomes president, but it is now "when" a woman becomes president.

The nation owes a great debt to Hillary Clinton.  Should she win the nomination, it will be well earned. But if she does not succeed, her mark will be felt forever.

- zasu

February 25, 2008 at 6:45pm

Nobody in the Democratic race right now needs to be trying to play the "experience" card.  If that were seriously the chief criterion Democratic voters were using this year it would be Joe Biden and Chris Dodd slugging it out, not Barack and Hillary.  

- cspencef

February 25, 2008 at 9:52pm