Is ‘momentum’ meaningful or a mirage?

Then again, they may well be wrong. The USA Today tracking polls show a long-term trend of Hillary Clinton losing support slowly but steadily, and a huge and increasing upsurge for Barack Obama.

According to today’s Daily Telegraph (UK) “The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party’s leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.” (Headline: Hillary Clinton’s advisers ‘in a state of panic’)

Momentum IS a reality in politics, just as in sports, and while Super Tuesday may have been a tie, it may well also mask the high water mark of the Clinton candidacy, which seems on the verge of collapsing like a soufflé.

Meantime, her “meta-message” in attacking MSNBC as an “angry mother” may well be undercutting her far more than it’s helping. Witness last night’s Obama sweep: he didn’t just win. Hillary Clinton got CREAMED (as her battle with MSNBC dominated the headlines and blogosphere).

It seems like a huge amount of the blame for the Clinton melt-down can be laid directly at the feet of the candidate. The leadup to South Carolina was a disastrous miscalculation and this “angry mother” thing may be another huge mistake. With everything on the line, the Hillary Clinton campaign is floundering, and, with everything one the line, the roof may well fall in. Call it momentum, call it “hundredth monkey,” but a critical mass may be closer than anyone thinks.

The Clinton campaign may indeed be right. But momentum is like a snowball on a hill: hardly noticeable at first, but capable of turning into an avalanche.

Open question: How important is Maine?

Does she need to win huge, or just win?

Agreed, HW. Critical mass is something that can sneak up, only to look so obvious in retrospect.

In answering my own question above, i’m starting to think that if she doesn’t put up a big, big win to erase this morning’s headlines then the Obama campaign starts running down hill.

Voters in New Hampshire didn’t care that Iowans preferred Obama over Clinton.

I disagree, and I think the lead Obama had in the polls going into NH are evidence that when the undecideds broke, they went for Clinton. I imagine some of them did so because Obama won in Iowa; I have a feeling NH doesn’t like to be perceived as a follower.

I guess what I’m saying is momentum is double-edged; it can cut both ways.

“I’m not convinced with Obama that there is any “there” there…

May I suggest — consider reading the issues section of his website and one or both of his books. Also, consider going on to YouTube to listen to some of his speeches.

I’ve read both candidates’ websites and both candidates’ books (with pencil in hand to underline, scribble in the margins and add question marks and exclamation points where applicable). Througout his life, Obama has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate integrity, self-awareness, depth, and substance to such an extent that voting for him last Tuesday was, for me, a no-brainer.

My view is that there is indeed momentum, as Obama has come from way behind in national polls, and also state polls. Remember how far he was behind in NH before willing Iowa.

It should go without saying that this year’s Democratic race is highly unusual. One candidate comes in with what appear to be insurmountable advantages in the primary but high negatives. Another comes along with a different appeal and increasingly proves he’s a viable option for those who fear the negatives of the other. For all the back-patting congratulations, Dems have done, gender and race remain factors for some — even if they may not be aware of it.

Combine all that with the facts that we have suffered 7 years of a disasterous Republican administration, that Dems fill they must win and can win the WH this cycle, and you have very strong feelings among the electorate.

From what I’ve seen, Dem voters are taking this primary very seriously and they’re making up their own minds between what most see are two viable candidates. Apparently, many are making up their minds in the final days before voting. Then there’s the matter of independents.

Is it any wonder conventional wisdom is struggling to make sense of the situation?

According to today’s Daily Telegraph (UK) “The Clinton camp hopes to stop the Obama bandwagon by winning Texas and Ohio primaries on March 4, after which Mrs Clinton is planning to call on party grandees including Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives and Harry Reid, the party’s leader in the Senate, to persuade Mr Obama to stand down.” (Headline: Hillary Clinton’s advisers ‘in a state of panic’)

If Pelosi and Reid are involved, that’s certainly enough for me to say NOT INTERESTED. Our elected officials have no spine and don’t give two shits about us as a country. If they did, they would make the goopers filibuster and not bow to the threat. They wouldn’t give telecoms immunity. They would start impeachment proceedings against Mukesey. They would have started Impeachment proceedings against Bush/Cheney to make sure that things get on the record. I know there won’t be enough votes to succeed but GET THEIR ACTS ON RECORD ANY WAY POSSIBLE!! In other words, they would listen to the people who elected them (and I hope are smart enough to NOT elect them next time. It’s time for new dems as much as to crush what is left of the virus that is GOP.)

I’m not buying the premises here. Before Iowa, Obama was a huge underdog in NH. By the time the vote came, he was as much as a 12% leader in polls. I suspect a lot of independents decided to make their votes count and went to McCain. How else do you explain that it was the only state where Reps had almost as many voters proportionately to Dems? Obama had campaigned long and hard in both NH and IA, but Nevada was relatively short, the population was different, and gender/race divisions were the issue. That theme then followed to SC, but again with a different population. Super Tuesday was a continuation of all of the above – time constraints, population differences, traditional voters vs new excited voters. Finally Super Saturday followed the pattern of new-excited voters who participate in caucuses. Clinton’s biggest worry ahould be that Obama becomes the conventional-wisdom candidate.

Momentum is only a mirage to those who aren’t thirsting to drink from the oasis.

I think momentum *does* exist, but I think what SB should be arguing is that acceleration does not. Obama won by landslides yesterday, but I don’t see that that will translate in any grand frog leaps in subsequent races. On the other hand, momentum is a bit-by-bit thing. It accumulates. So how much accumulation will Obama have if he 85% of the upcoming matchups? Will it mean *nothing* to TX or OH?

Yeah, another candidate didn’t believe in momentum either: Rudy Giuliani.

I think that for Obama to get where he is right now, he has had created momemtum working in his favor. It has got to the point where it has beaten HRC yet, but considering where he was a just a couple of months ago, it is definetely there.

On the otherhand I don’t think HRC has had any in her campaign yet. From the original position of trumphant inevitablity, they have had a few wins but nothing like the level of support that they need to turn back the Obama tide. This doesn’t mean she still can’t scrape a win, but I don’t think momentum is now any part of her campaign strategy so they will down play momentum as much as possible. They must have loved this section title of yours today.

What has been most interesting for me of the campaign thus far is trying to work out the original HRC strategy and I have to wonder if there really was one. She has apperaed for quite some time now in a purely tactical, reactive mode, (the MSNBC drama is exactly that) and that in itself will never lead to momentum, because each one of these dramas leads to as many people thinking negatively about her as positively. And the great ironey is that it smacks up against her touting her 35 years experience. Maybe her 35 years, (and mostly with Bill), has been a whoile series of tactical reactions to everything that has gone on around her and that is how she thinks, which leads me to wonder if some form of “political paranoria” hasn’t set in. If not saying that isn’t justified from her viewpoint, but cause and effect are not entirely out of her control.

Lou Gerstner said, “Strategy is execution” and on that basis, Obama is currently in a league of his own.

Momentum killer? Think how hacking a few thousand votes in the New Hampshire Democratic Primary Election from the Obama column to the Clinton column would change things and slow down Obama… With designed-to-be-hacked Diebold optical scanning vote counting machines “counting” 81% of the vote in New Hampshire, it was very easily done by some Republican mischief makers. See bragblog and blackboxvoting and opednews for details.

We are not going to have clean honest elections until we return to 100% hand-counted paper ballots. With electronic computerized voting machines and vote tabulating machines, the GOP can add 5% or 10% to their election totals with a little hacking on Election Night… And many folks are still puzzling how Bush “won” in 2004….

Somewhat OT but… I’m a registered Dem living in Portland, Maine and I just got my FIFTH call (all within the last four days) from a live person with the Obama campaign. I received one call from the Clinton campaign and it was a robocall.

I expected a much bigger GOTV effort from the Clintons.

I don’t know if “momentum” is the right word. But I do believe we are seeing an evolution of attitudes about Obama, from likable and inspiring but certainly not electable, to likable and inspiring and substantial, too, and certainly electable. His success in early voting has been, I believe, an important factor in convincing people he might indeed have a good chance at winning in November. As more people, whether initially supporters of one of the other candidates or of Clinton, shift in attitude towards the second pole, Obama’s support continues to grow. Of course, at some point the upward growth in his populatity and support will lessen, and then level out. But to date, the growth curve has been strong, and the weekend results indicate it’s reasonable to guess its trajectory is still positive. In addition, the weekend victories make it likely that remaining doubters will move towards the second pole, enhancing his chances in the primaries to come. If that’s what folks mean when they say “momentum,” then I would agree.

I’ve reached another of those decision points about Hillary and Obama. The Clinton response to Shuster/MSNBC is out of hand and out of proportion, with Hillary demanding that they fire him. I understand that the Clinton’s have been treated horribly by the press and that they need to push back hard. I agree that Shuster needed to get disciplined, and he did, but he is usually one of the good guys, an excellent, fair, and imaginative reporter. His continuing (until now) Bushwhacked series put the legal indiscretions of the Bushies on the front burner – which is important for a lot of reasons favorable to the Democratic message and Democratic prospects. Chris Matthews is the main problem at MSNBC, and I have no doubt that he created a culture where a good guy like Shuster can find himself saying what he did. To me, this is another example of a wrong decision, tactically and ethically, by Hillary, done based on political calculation (and the list of those wrong-in-real-time-to look-tough pol calc decisions is too long already), and also smacks of enemy lists.

If she hadn’t agreed to a debate on Faux News just a few days before, it would be harder to see the calculus, but Faux has certainly said every conceivable unacceptable thing about Hillary, Chelsea, and Bill on nearly a daily basis since they were founded. This decision speaks, unfavorably, to Hillary’s judgement and character (women and mothers, please weigh in here – particularly Anne). I’ll still vote for her if she is the nominee (she is far and away better than any reThug), but Obama has my enthusiastic support in the primaries as of now. Listen to his and Hillary’s speech at the Virginia Jefferson-Jackson dinner last night, and you’ll hear a host of valid reasons why. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/10/obama-clinton-speeches-at-the-jefferson-jackson-dinner/

btw, I’m a father of a 19 year old girl, and I also saw red.

bicomon,

The Obama campaign is very big in getting their volunteers to make calls. My girlfriend has made calls to NY, Nebraska, etc. Sometimes they do it from home, sometimes they meet in groups. The campaign website has a section where you log on and get a list, checking off numbers and recording the result of your call. It should also be noted that in these cases, the callers are using their own phone minutes. The huge numbers of volunteers doing it seems to lead to a lot of repeat calling, but i’ve not heard of a person who got angry because of them.

Some of these (mostly) young people are probably on a bandwagon, but let’s face it, it takes something to cold call people in other states with your own money. And it shows a great deal of trust on the part of the campaign to allow these volunteers so much freedom. My girlfriend has ended up, on more than a few occasions, in 10 – 15 minute conversations with people she’s never met…not even talking about politics!

As I have stated many many times before for those that think those college students voting in caucases around the country will be there in November I have some swamp land here in Florida to sell you. 10% or less of the 18-21 age group will turn on in November and that does not translate into a majority vote for Mr Obama. I know that it sounds pessimistic but thats the facts. Latino voters will more than likely vote for McCain and older white women will be less likely to make it a priorety to go vote. And if 1.8 million voters are left out of the process I beleive that they to will be less likely to vote in November. Most but not all baby boomers in this nation want experence not on the job training. I don’t think anyone except Ron Paul beleives that we can just bring all of our troops home from Iraq. Neither Hillary nor Obama could or would be able to. So theefore get ready for 4 more years of Rethug rule.

Everyone seems to forget who is in the WH its still the same group that brought us our great traffic light warning system that will once again dominate the news in the next 9 months. The more that the soccor moms get worried about terrorist the less likely that Barack would win in the general election. It would be hard for Hillary but she might just beable to overcome the onslaught of threats from the rethugs. And one added thing never put anything past the Bush administration. Under the warpowers act he can end troops into combat for 30 days without authorization from congress. So don’t be surprised.

As I have stated many many times before for those that think those college students voting in caucases around the country will be there in November I have some swamp land here in Florida to sell you. 10% or less of the 18-21 age group will turn on in November and that does not translate into a majority vote for Mr Obama.

Jim, I realize that you support Hillary, but you should make your case – without making up facts.

First of all, 18-21 isn’t a demographic. The census bureau looks at voters age 18-24. If you want to examine their findings from 2004, go here.

Secondly, while those aged 18-24 had the lowest turnout of any age group, the percentage that voted was 58% – quite a bit higher than 10%.

If you are arguing that in this political climate we are seeing, where voters are energized and turning out at record rates for PRIMARIES and CAUCUSES, that the voters aged 18-24 will suddenly turnout at a rate that is nearly 50% lower than they did in 2004 in the general election, then I am the one with swampland here in Florida to sell you.

http://www.civicyouth.org/?page_id=241

As I have stated many many times before for those that think those college students voting in caucases around the country will be there in November I have some swamp land here in Florida to sell you. 10% or less of the 18-21 age group will turn on in November and that does not translate into a majority vote for Mr Obama. -Jim

Repetition doesn’t make it so, Jim. I’ve seen you perpetuate this myth over and over again. Please do us all a favor and do a little research into the youth vote in 2000, 2004, and 2006. It’s been dramatically increasing, and will likely make up more than a fifth of the entire vote in November, especially if a candidate who inspires them is on the ballot.

Please stop perpetuating the myth that Obama’s success is only due to college students. Beginning your comment with inanity like that invalidates your entire point by causing reasonable people to skip it.

My apologies, I was looking at the wrong table.

Those between the ages of 18 and 24 had 47% reported going to the polls.

That’s certainly not 58%, but it is a far cry from 10%.

wvng, this whole MSNBC blow-up is all about making everybody focus on that subject while she got her ass handed to her yesterday.

I’m not saying that they don’t vote at all but even in Iowa only 13% of all caucas goers were 18-29.

Jim: As I have stated many many times before for those that think those college students voting in caucases around the country will be there in November

Jim: but even in Iowa only 13% of all caucas goers were 18-29.

Which is it, Jim? Are the caucus goers just a bunch of college students or aren’t they?

JRS Jr (24) – if that is true, that makes it even worse.

btw, Greenwald has a superb post today on McCain, national security toughness, and a key Clinton advisor (Terry McCauliffe) throwing away the opportunity to challenge the CW. Key quote:

“If the Democrats want a blueprint for a sure losing strategy, they need look no further than McAuliffe’s answer. He was asked expressly whether McCain is too much of a hawk — whether his foreign policy views are dangerously war-loving — and although he gave a long, rambling answer, McAuliffe never once dared to criticize McCain on national security — not one word of criticism. Instead, he ignored the issue, immediately switched the topic to the economy, accepted the premise that McCain was “tough” and formidable on foreign policy, and then argued that Hillary was just as “tough” and would not, therefore, be vulnerable to attack. In other words: Hillary and McCain are the same on national security — equally “tough” — therefore that can be ignored and the focus should be on domestic issues.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/02/10/mcauliffe/index.html

As good as Hillary is personally (I still believe that), her choice of key advisors, including McCauliffe, Penn, and the Brookings Boys, reeks of beltway “wisdom” and craven (mis)calculation. I don’t believe Hillary would ever have made this mistake, or missed an opportunity to make a key distinction – but her key spokespeople do it time and time again. That is unacceptable.

This is why I come here. Didn’t think of it this way. The other CW I’m reconsidering — Obama needs a fad phenomenon. He’s holding steady. I always thought he would blowout or fade, but he’s trucking along, too.

I disagree; momentum is extremely important. I can’t recall such a closely-contested battle as this, and it’s true that things have moved forward with a victory for this one followed by a victory for that one. Still, slowly but inexorably, one candidate is emerging as the people’s champion, and one is increasingly seen as a self-interested elitist. Whether or not these impressions actually reflect the candidates’ real values is as irrelevant as guilt or innocence in court – it is the impression of guilt or innocence that prevails as the result of skill and luck on the part of the defense or of the prosecution that counts in the end.

Things will reach a tipping point (as much as I loathe that overused chestnut) where independents and undecideds believe they will throw away their vote if they do not support the perceived stronger candidate. Anything either candidate can do in the intervening time before that perception becomes inescapable will be largely decided by momentum.

I think this is the operative phrase: “string of defeats”.

Neither candidate has had a string of defeats yet. NH-NV for Obama is the closest, and in fact there was a sense of momentum for Clinton during that time.

This stage of the campaign is quite different, so I think you’re right in the sense that whatever momentum there is will not be as powerful as it could have been in January.

But let’s revisit the momentum idea this Wednesday, after VA MD DC, and then the following Wednesday, after HI WI. If Obama goes 8, 9 or possibly even 10 for 10 since Feb. 5, won’t we be able to stipulate to the empirical existence of “momentum”? And wouldn’t we expect that to have a significant effect on polls out of TX and OH?

Just a hunch but I beleive that Obama may well win the nomination but I still have doubts that he will win in the general election. I know everyone thinks it bull about this red state blue state stuff but it is there and it does exist. It will of course depend who Obama and McCain pick as running mates but if Obame chooses another left wing liberal McCain will win hands down. Not everyone in the democratic party is that far left. For me unless Mc Cain went way to the right it would be a tough decision in November. Although I still think I would vote for Obama but then it is my personal beleif that in 2010 the dems would lose the congress. For some reason this nation can’t stand one party rule for to long.

What Mark (29) said.

to Jim (31), it’s hard to know which is the larger potential problem, Obama being black or Hillary being a woman who is irrationally and viscerally hated by the right, because there is simply no way to know. However, I find it most helpful that McCain seems to want to tie himself around Mr. 26%’s waist (see CB’s next post).

wvng @ 18 hints at something…

What’s most masterful here is the way the message of Barack’s victory speeches are being honed. On Super Tuesday he started to file away, albeit finely, on McCain pate. Yesterday he took out a wood rasp and started to flay away flakes of rotting skin.

Of course I realize that all candidates do this: alter their messages as a function of time.
But I’ve not ever seen a candidate so shrewdly play his cards one perfectly placed trump card after another. Of course my Bridge-trump analogy is wrong. This guy is a political poker player sine qua non:

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2008/02/04/080204ta_talk_mcmanus

Now days when I hear Barack speak I laugh a lot. Not because I am dead to his lofty rhetoric like some posters here. Quite the contrary. But because, the guy is so sharply shrewd you can only shake your head in knowing laughter.

This guy is a monster monster player.
He is good. Very good.

There has been momentum for Obama. Sometimes this means winning. Sometimes this means going from far behind to losing by a narrower margin.

The impact of Obama’s momentum is sometimes less apparent by early voting, giving an edge to Clinton in a primary even if the momentum is in Obama’s favor by the time of the actual vote.

Clinton is counting on Obama not picking up enough momentum to keep her from winning in the final three states. There are two faults to this strategy. First, this sounds an awful lot like Rudy Giuliani’s strategy. A string of losses could change the results in the final states. Secondly, even if Clinton wins in the final three big states, she is unlikely to win by a big enough margin to make up for the increased number of delegates Obama is winning.

http://news.owu.edu/2008/20080202-mockConventionResults.html

It’s not a media poll, and its focus is somewhat limited, but this seems to be a trend here in Ohio—and it’s fairly new (Feb. 1 and 2).

I go onto the campuses at Kent, Akron, Youngstown, Cleveland, and Toledo, and they’re all sending the same message: Obama. Everyone’s talking about getting involved this time around. I haven’t made it down to Columbus yet (Ohio State), but if the whole state is shifting like this, then Clinton’s in for a rough ride next month.

[comment deleted, because this isn’t the “Zeitgeist” who always contributes under the name “Zeitgeist.” If this person wants his or her IP address renewed, he or she can email me, and I can explain the problems associated with stealing regulars’ screen-names. -CB]

Hillary fired Pattis Solis Doyle today…never a good sign.

More evidence for what I’ve been saying. Obama is in the process of winning this thing. It’s by no means in the bag, but I think it’s a lot closer than people realize. It’s like Hillary’s campaign doesn’t get voter behavior or coalition building at all, or, they just really underestimated Obama to an embarrassing extent

hehe, Zeitgest, are you getting on the Obama train also?

Hey Michael, Zeitgeist has always been on the “reality-based” community rain. Calls em where the facts lead him. The facts lead him to the conclusion that Obama has the momentum.

Which is simply true.

Hey, and did Zeitgeist decide to come back since Steve calmed the waters?

Oh, I know Zeitgest has always been on the reality-based train, it was this that raised my eyebrows:

And now we can hope that he uses yesterday’s momentum to perform well in maine, a state you would have thought he stood no chance in as recently as january.

That sounds like he’s openly rooting for Obama

I don’t ever recall the “real” Zeitgeist employing the caps-lock function. Methinks we’ve one of those “whatevers” in our midst.

Somebody else has been posting as zeitgeist. SB removed a comment the other day and blocked an IP because of it. Hard to tell. But that doesn’t sound like the real thing to me.

This screenname jacking is BS.

If i’m wrong, i apologize, zeitgeist.

Yes, I was going to suggest that is not really zeitgeist. Sad. The real zeitgeist tended much more strongly toward reason, and was never in my recollection crassly triumphant over someone’s troubles. This is a pretender, and of much lesser calibre. Zetitgeist, if you’re still out there, we miss you.

So i followed Michaels link and stumbled across some early results from Maine…

It looks like Clinton may be taking a pounding. I counted 7 precincts so far for Clinton against 34 for Obama. The ones Clinton looks like she’ll win have been fairly close; many of the Obama wins are 2:1.

Of course, too early to tell anything, but if this firewall doesn’t hold then she’s in big, big trouble. Sounds like huge turnouts as well.

http://www.turnmaineblue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=779

Slightly bad info above, i’m sorry. It seems like Clinton is doing better in the delegate heavy precincts so the numbers are pretty close…

jackpine–those numbers where they’re close are early…fox news has it at 57-41 with 41% reporting, and poblano at DKos is saying that, based on the current unofficial numbers, his estimate is 63-37 in delegate share

Another blow out in Maine. Another night of celebration for Obama, another night of crying and excuses for Hillary.

yeah, i felt like a jackpine ass after hitting post and seeing what time those numbers were posted at. But i was surprised at the breakdowns. It seemed like where he was winning it was big and where she was winning it was close.

Obama just picked up a freaking grammy? He cannot be stopped.

Hillary should drop out after the potomac primaries. She will make a fine supreme court justice, but obama is the next president of the united states of america.

This website’s refusal to acknowledge the rise of obama causes me to question CB’s credibility, and makes me wonder if the powers that be are merely patsies for the clinton campaign (steve has professed his love of bill in the past).

I don’t think, as children first supposes, that SB has refused to acknowledge anything. He’s simply done an excellent job of maintaining a site that is more about watching/discussing the process than rooting for either nominee. Thank the lord almighty for it too…every sailor appreciates a port in a storm.

The NYT has a couple of excellent pieces relevant to this toe-to-toe slugfest; one, Frank Rich’s deconstruction of HRC’s “Voices Across America” virtual town hall on the eve of Super Tuesday – in which he comments on its Stepford-like atmosphere – and a piece entitled “Superdelegates, Back Off”. The latter cautions against these superdelegates, in panic, picking the nominee before the people have had a chance to speak.

I haven’t seen the Maine returns yet, but it seems ironic that they are being discussed under a post that speculates on whether momentum matters.

#43 and #44 are correct. Zeitgeist has not returned. I just received an e-mail from the real Zeitgeist. Cheers.

Human nature tends to see a pile-on of support for the people who seem like a winner. Whether Obama’s winning aura is real or imagined, the perception is still the same. More and more people will continue to be drawn toward him simply because more and more people are already on board. This is a question of momentum and it should continue until something arrests it or diverts it. It will take more than tears or an angry mother to get the public to perceive that a new winner is emerging. If Hillary comes across as the stronger attacker of all things Bush she may once again assume the mantle of leader of the pack.

Hillary’s staff change I suspect may be an action to keep donors on board. It’s a wise move if it’s just window dressing, but hopefully it will be even wiser if the new campaign manager makes her a better candidate than she has been.

I”m thinking Barack’s momentum will come to a grinding halt after the Chesapeake primary?

It’s true that Barack’s got a steep mountain to overcome if he wants to win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania. The demographics in those three states favor Hillary more than Obama.

There’s no way that Texans are going to vote for a Clinton. Or a Huckabee. Or ANYONE from Arkansas, of all places!

Texans look at Arkansas like New Yorkers look at New Jersey. Bleah.

I predict that Obama will totally dominate in Texas.

And Huckabee will get spanked there too. But, he’ll probably like that, kinky twisted fundamentalist freak that he is.

Thanks, Jackpine. I had shot my mouth off enough to want to wait for Maine results.

The disastrous defeat of Hillary and the replacement of her campaign manager pretty well speak for themselves. That juggernaut is in full meltdown.

Yeah. I think there’s such a thing as momentum.

And, it can change.

And I wouldn’t worry about the phony “Superdelegates” meme — considering that the “superdelegates” don’t come into play until August 25 (opening of Democratic National Convention in Denver), a mere 197 days from now.

197 days AGO, (July 28, 2007) the big stories were Hillary’s Cleavage, whether Mitt might maybe join the YouTube debates after all, and why Rudy Giuliani had such a crappy webpage. (Wash Post archive)

Still, it’s hard to imagine a scenario wherein Sen. Clinton isn’t on the ropes. “Momentum” has a way of drying up money to those without it, and increasing it to those who have it. No one can deny that the Clinton campaign is in deep doo doo — this on a weekend that her “Indignant mom defends wronged daughter” narrative dominated the news cycles.

Today’s result suggests that may have been the weekend that Hillary became toast.

Thanks for a sensible article. Imo ever since NV, it’s been looking like Obama is a momentum candidate but Hillary is not. Dunno if Obama needs momentum for his funding, but last week showed Hillary doesn’t.

Obama is selling himself as a ‘movement’, a feel-good back to the 60s sort of experience. That sort of thing needs momentum, the magical energy of Jupiter aligned with Mars once in a lifetime Harmonic Convergence when the groundhog considers emerging, but don’t expect him to do this again, it’s now or never, he’s about to lose his freshness….

Hillary is reaching blue collar traditional Democratic base voters, with practical solutions and expertise. Some of these people she has been helping for decades, getting results. When the primary comes to their state, they vote for her (but lack the latte to caucus). These are people who don’t even READ anything that uses words like ‘momentum’. They have better things to do.

the caucuses are the stronghold of Senator Obama…cause Hillary’s supporters are working for a living….. They are undemocratic and intimidating. In Iowa…buss loads of Illinois students who attended college here…where running many of the caucuses. Tuition is cheaper in Iowa than Illinois. They registered..and voted here…although they are not Iowans. If the caucuses had not been overrun by the Obamabrats.,,,Edwards would have been first…Hillary second…and Obama last. I just want to send a warning to those who support Obama. I would suggest you stop trying to divide young and old…or there will be hell to pay come the general election…if you win the nomination. Us old geezers are not taken in by the rhetoric because we have seen it before. Most of us will vote for McCain rather than someone who is all smoke and mirrors. He shows no ability to be commander and chief…and now his relationships with certain businessman from Iraq which the Republicans will use….will be the end of Obama. That information is readily available on the net…and those “old geezers”….are reading…and quiet. Beware…Obama will never be the next President. Its called the silent majority. They will speak.

I forgot to mention — in the words of Adam Smith: “The stock is going up as long as it is going up.”

Everyone has a point, here is mine. I’m sick of the wanna be MLK of JFK, there was only one MLK/JFK and there isn’t going to be another. Stop talking dreams, change, etc….. get to the real issues. Preaching is working, but the reality is that voters are not understanding the real point to this process. Most of the people who have voted for Obama are in a time warp and can’t move past a smooth talker and a wanna be. Obama will never have my vote and if I must, I will vote for the other side.
Mom in Illinois who isn’t fooled by the smooth talk of a young, inexperience and over exposed canidate.