Brilliant. You're on to something pretty deep here. Somebody please put a muzzle on Chris Matthews before he blows it again.

Or it could just be that, contra the networks, voters in several states simply didn't see Obama as being Hillary's equal. We obviously don't poll people who already voted in past primaries, but I wonder what non-Obama voters would think now that Obama essentially tied Hillary on February 5? Mark Penn argued in a memo that the popular perception was that Hillary "won" Super Tuesday, but it could be that, in fact, seeing this young upstart fight two Clintons to a national draw allayed the fears of many voters that Obama wasn't ready for primetime.

I guess the question won't be settled until March 4.

Is there maybe a "muzzle Chris Mathews" petition floating around somewhere?

Noam:

Watch the national polls. If Obama starts repeating the following line:

"I've won 10 straight contests"

...then they might start shifting in his direction.

Noam-

A quick look at your most recent posts would seem to suggest that you're bending over backwards to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt--or more.

"Hillary May Have the Edge in Maine," you write.

And: ". . .what's clear is that the terrain [Maine] isn't super-favorable for [Obama]. . ."

And: "Yeah, Maine looks pretty good for Hillary."

You also suggested that an anti-Hillary storyline (re: the firing of her Latina campaign manager) was "urged on" Matt Drudge (as if Drudge EVER needed such urging), presumably by Obama supporters.

And now that Obama has taken four state primaries in a row--Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine--you write: "Is Hillary Momentum-Proof?"

And: "My hunch is that the Clinton campaign didn't make much of an effort to turn out its supporters today [in Maine]."  As if this explains away Obama's unexpected win.

So what is it with you, Noam? Is this just pure coincidence, or are you shilling for Hillary?  

it's not that hillary is entitled to the nomination/presidency -- no one would or should claim that -- it is the sense among a certain component of the electorate (obviously myself included) that she has somehow earned it, worked harder for it, made ends meet for it, suffered for it even, etc.  i would imagine that such a sentiment explains some of her working class bread-winner support, whether male or female.  like: doesn't obama strike you as the young guy who might force you into early retirement?  (and i'm NOT race-baiting here!)

I would caveat that: Needless to say, Democratic voters' complex psychological relationships to Hillary makes her extremely difficult for Democrats to run against...

Something tells me McCain and company won't have these problems.

Um... I want Hillary to lose

Joseph, he's a "hedge" hog.  And he'll probably be hedging all the way to March 5th.

How many firewalls does Hillary get?

The presidency is not something you earn -- it is something you claim, the prize of successful political combat.  Hillary is an incompetent politician who never won a real political battle in her entire non-career, unless you call beating Rick Lazio in a state with a 2:1 Democratic enrollment advantage a political victory. Her one major foray, on health care, was a disaster because she has a total tin ear.  Obama, who is nothing if not extremely politically talented, is demonstrating Hillary's clay feet as a politician and Democrats, most of whom, except perhaps for 70s feminists, consider winning in November the highest priority, are figuring it out.  Thank god.

mollysimon-

Yes, I guess you're right, I guess that makes sense.

By the way, have you seen primwallflow's post on the Obama Takes Maine thread?

It's just brilliant.

One would think by now all such expressions as "shilling for" and anything even remotely close would have disappeared from the lingo of loyal Democrats whose party is about to nominate either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.

To put forward an analysis that asks the question about why Senator Clinton seems to be displaying such remarkable resilience despite Senator Obama's strength is not "shilling." Far from it. It is asking a legitimate question and a very interesting one at that--whether one is an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter an inquisitive student of the electorate would want to know the answer to this question.

Here is a suggestion as to what might be taking place. It may in large measure have to do with the economy. Senator Clinton's candidacy, while she is now the underdog, refuses to go away because of the great economic insecurity felt by so many voters. The economic news between Iowa and her upset victory in NH was practically a direct arrow pointing downwards for that whole preceding week. The large group of elites and well-off white males who favor Senator Obama--that part of his vote--is really not affected by this news to any great degree. Their stocks will go down, but they will go back up again. They will in all liklihood not lose their job--and they probably have savings and may not need to be living from paycheck to paycheck.

Senator Clinton's huge base and core support of voters, on the other hand, is composed of the many, many families who are one or two paychecks away from serious potential economic hardship. They may, in fact, be in that hardship now where family funds are insufficient to cover medical costs if they are uninsured. For these voters a demonstrated track record and experience and understanding of the hardships faced by families with children matters a very great deal.

Consequently, her message with these groups--and this includes large segments of the Latino community--is getting through. For these voters in the traditional Democratic base it is her experience that they think of most when hard economic times are either here or on the immediate horizon. And they are.

You do not have to be "shilling" for Senator Clinton to point this out. It would seem that Senator Obama and his supporters (at least the enlightened ones) will want to focus on this in Ohio and Texas if he is to lock in the nomination. On the other hand, the economy may worsen between now and the big state primaries. Sen. Obama will need to both inspire and inspire confidence that he can solve the economic problems that people are experiencing if he is to lock in enough pledged delegates to maintain the lead.

The Obama campaign and its supporters ought to be thinking about honing the economic message and specific and concrete steps that Sen. Obama would take--for if he is to be the nominee and become President it will matter a very great deal.

I predict great bouts of weeping for Hillary over the coming weeks, endlessly replayed on all the major networks, and a continuous 24-hour loop preempting everything on what has become her own personal network CNN, which has change its name to the Clinton News/Propaganda Network.

Hillary's new campaign theme will be, "I put up with Bill for all these years, and this is the thanks I get from America, how dare you not vote for me.  I guarantee that I will make you all rue the day that you decided to vote for that Black guy.  I'll make you suffer just the way I've made Bill suffer, and look what it's done to him."

Then Mrs. Clinton will jumps on her broom and cackle maniacally as she flies off into the night to begin plotting the overthrow of democracy, and those troubling democratic ideals that have dared to come between her and the acquisition of power and the office of the presidency, which is quite obviously her rightful due.  

See y'all at the coronation, the King is dead, Long live Queen Hillary!  Girl power!

According to Ellen Goodman's Feb. 8 column, "only 35,000 votes out of 14 million separated Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

If the entire MSM and 95% of the liberal blogosphere were not suffering from a combination of Obamamania and HDS, it might have occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, the 50% that have voted for Hillary actually want her to be the Democratic candidate?

And, I seem to remember, way back when, that John McCain was all washed up.  No jets, no limos, Budget motels, unpaid staff. Not a chance in the world, poor old guy.  

Maybe you should all stop talking to each other and get out around and about a bit more.

TULLIUS-

On a weekend when Obama has won all four state contests, it seems appropriate to ask whether a blogger who thought it probable that Hillary would win Maine (and gave specific reasons for this), then said HRC didn't win Maine because her campaign didn't "make much of an effort to turn out its supporters" there (without providing a single shred of evidence)--a blogger who also suggested that an anti-Hillary storyline was "urged on" Matt Drudge (Matt Drudge!), presumably by Obama supporters (again, without providing a shred of evidence for this)--it seems appropriate to ask if indeed said blogger has a predisposition to skew his writings in Hillary's favor, as a shill for her, so to speak.

But perhaps the most appropriate response to all of this (to Noam, and to you, Tullius) is that of primwallflow, whose post on the Obama Takes Maine thread is the best I've seen for some time at TNR Talkback Nation.

So, here (below) for those of you who haven't yet seen it, is primwallflow's brilliant post:

________________________________________________________________________________

From: Mark Penn

To: <<HIDDEN>>

Re: UPSET OF THE YEAR: Hillary loses Maine by less than 20%!

Dear friends of the Presidents Clinton,

We always knew we'd lose Maine. Always. In fact, when Hillary declared last year, in our first strategy session, she made a $5 million side bet with me that the Pine Tree State wouldn't go her way (by the way, as a result of this, Senator Clinton is now no longer in debt to her campaign). And the Obamaniacs at CNN and the chauvinazis at MSNBC have been parroting this line diligently.

So who knew that the triumph of beating a 20-point spread would taste so sweet?

But there are other reasons to doubt the importance of the results from Maine:

1. Maine is a longtime African-American stronghold, anchored by the vast chocolate cities of Bangor and Augusta.

2. Maine was a caucus. Obama has won every caucus this year. Every single one. Except the ones he hasn't.

3. Maine practically plays backyard to Illinois. Of course, when you're swimming in ill-gotten slum cash, everywhere's your backyard.

4. Reviewing the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, you'll be as shocked as I am to learn that 19th century surveyors misdrew the borders between the United States and then-British North America, known to us now as Canada. In fact, the entirety what we now know as "Maine" ought to be in the province of Nova Scotia! Last I checked, they don't have a primary.

We're used to seeing dirty tricks from Barack "Rezko" Obama, but giving Canadians the vote is a new low.

5. Did you know that Maine used to be part of Massachusetts? Bet you didn't! And we all know how Massachusetts voted last week.

In short, this was a stunning upset over our stubborn rival. Hillary would like to share her deep appreciation by sending you an invitation to donate to her campaign. Primary funds only please.

Victory in November!

Mark

______________________________________________________________________________

Or maybe, if Hillary weren't a transparently tin-eared political legatee who had been anointed Candidate Inevitable before a single vote had been cast, Hillary wouldn't be considered a viable candidate at all?

But go ahead, keep pushing that "everyone is mean to Hillary" line. It's certainly done her service so far.

Ohio is a curious place. I think if Bill dials up that Porter Wagoner persona a bit, and if Hillary can rev up a bit of that feisty Dolly shtick she uses now and then in the South (having Chelsea singing back-up helps), they may just be "hip hick" enought to take Ohio.

Except I do think they have a big, big Catholic problem that will shock them. Those same Catholics who voted for Bill when he was "Kennedyesque" haven't had a change to express their outrage at the ballot box since his escapades with Lewinsky. The Clintons are going to get clobbered by the Catholics.

But don't underestimate the power of Bill-as-Porter Wagoner. When he's in the groove, it works for the Clinton base.

fougasseu: I'm pretty sure Hillary's been winning Catholics so far, but that may be a function of her Latino margins. I'm not sure how she's doing amongst white Catholics.

TaleofGenji

You know what, you're absolutely right. Roughly half of the democratic electorate is for Senator Clinton, and Obama supporters should start being more respectful of that and I suppose we will, as soon as Mark Penn admits that we (you know the other 50% of the democratic party) exist. Maybe its just me, but not existing kinda messes with my manners. Sorry about that.

O' and for the record, I didn't really have a negative thought about Senator Clinton until she told an all white audience in South Carolina that she respected Congressman Charlie Rangel because "he worked hard to raise himself up from being a high school drop out to one of the most powerful members of Congress. He didn't get there you know by leapfrogging - he got there by lots of hard work day in and eday out.”  

Now that I think about it, I suppose I could've interpreted that as a veiled affirmative action reference but not being the sort to leap to such conclusions I just thought she sounded a tad too entitled to get my vote.   What do you think she meant?

She meant that Obama "hasn't paid his dues" and is trying to leapfrog to the presidency.  That makes Obama uppity, unwilling to "wait his turn" behind Hillary the annointed.  Rangel isn't one of them uppity you know whats/  He knows his place.  

More racism from the Clintons.  Hillary lost me with the anti-flag burning thing.  But this is so bad it makes me consider voting for McCain if she gets the nomination.  And I have only voted for a single Republican in my life, anti-war liberal Republican Senator from NY, Charles Goodell

Whoa, is Powell going to endorse Obama?

amyproctor.squarespace.com/.../colin-powell-to-back-obama.html

You know why I love Hillary? She really has an ear for the everyday voters. You know, the guys & gals left out of the system.

Here, for example, are her thoughts about the wonderful, time-honored role that superdelegates play in the democratic process:

“Superdelegates are by design supposed to exercise independent judgment, that is the way the system works,” she told reporters after a town hall in Orono, Maine. “If Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to push this position which is really contrary to what the definition of a super delegate has historically been then I look forward to receiving the support of Sen. Kennedy and Sen. Kerry.”

That's Hillary for you, master politician. Another day, another magic-working ode to the power of the common man!

Congratulations to Sen. Obama on his strong weekend wins - and advance congratulations on the anticipated wins tomorrow and later this month. He gets post-Super Tuesday bragging rights this month (although I wasn't surprised by his wins), but I'm not

Come on, folks.

Hillary surely has a strong firewall, but it doesn't exceed 35-40% of strong support. Traditional Democrats like my grandmother, who says that Obama is "conniving" and seems to believe that Michelle Obama is too dark.

Same goes for Obama's firewall of strong support. 35-40%!

The rest is up for grabs. If Obama gains momentum, there's no reason why he can't hit 60% and win the popular vote in states like Ohio and Texas where Demographics favor Hillary.

ralphnelle:

I heard that secondhand from a friend, and after watching the video it certainly sounds like he might.  While I don't know how much impact his endorsement would have on voters, it certainly would be a big symbolic blow against the Bush legacy and the Republicans.  I'll believe it when I see it.

Even if Obama&#8217;s victories in this past weekend&#8217;s primaries and caucuses did nothing to clarify the delegate count (either he&#8217;s up, or down, or they&#8217;re tied &#8212; nobody knows for certain), he certainly now has that treasured

Unlike Jason , I&#39;m actually somewhat sympathetic to Mickey Kaus&#39;s friend S., who speculated that

It’s been theorized (by Mickey Kaus and Maureen Dowd , among others) that Hillary Clinton is the beneficiary

Over at Real Clear Politics, Jay Cost tries to sort out whether Hillary or Obama is the better closer

Gabor Steingart, who astutely covers Washington for the German mag Der Spiegel , has written an interesting