Barack Obama has momentum and excitement after his five-contest sweep over the weekend — the margin of his Maine victory was especially impressive, given that the demographics (white women, blue-collar) were said to favor Hillary Clinton.
Obama also is pulling away on fundraising, clearing $32 million in January, compared with $13.5 million for Clinton, who lent her campaign $5 million of her own money.
With Obama’s expected wins in Tuesday’s primaries, it’s looking like a long, demoralizing month for Clinton.
But can Obama close the deal? That remains the nagging question, this article points out. He still hasn’t shown that he can put away Clinton. He’s running up a string of wins and attracting funds and crowds — but can he translate it into a vote shift where it matters, in Clinton’s March 4 firewall states, Texas and Ohio?
If he can win those contests, especially Texas, he’ll be on his way to the nomination. That’s still a big “if.â€
33 Comments
Is that really necessary?
Can’t you just type “MORE” vice “MO”?
I don’t think Texas is a Clinton state, shouldn’t be a problem for Obama.
American Way, I think the sportswriters have taken over. I agree with your suggestion, however, with one alteration: “MOMENTUM” vice “MO”.
Is Clinton “on the ropes” (to borrow another sports metaphor)? Is changing campaign managers seen as an act of desparation?
I don’t presume to have or know the answers…just wondering if it is possible that someone with so much political experience could actually lose to a relative newcomer?
Taz, I don’t have nor presume to know the answers, either, but as is being demonstrated (apparently) the answer to your final question is “yes”. I personally think this can happen at any time the person with a lot of political experience (and all the assorted advisors, hangers on, et al) misjudge the mood of the electorate. In other words, relying upon the conventional wisdom is appropriate most of the time, so long as it is realized that conventional wisdom is occasionally wrong.
Taz
“just wondering if it is possible that someone with so much political experience could actually lose to a relative newcomer?”
The sum of Clinton’s political experience is exactly the reason Obama may beat her. They’ve seen how Clinton plays the game and they don’t like it.
Also, don’t discount the far lefts anger over Clinton’s perceived support of the Iraq war. I believe that is one of the biggest factors in her poor showing.
But it ain’t over yet……
“Obama has got mo —”
“Mo” What?
Is that Missouri?
Texas gave us Ann Richards and Molly Ivins. Don’t discount the dems in Texas.
Clinton is on the ropes…………………..
So was Muhammad Ali against George Foreman.
We all know how that turned out – Foreman on his back looking like he had just been hit by a truck.
I am a supporter of Barack Obama, but like Yogi said, it ain’t over till it’s over.
Don’t forget–there are far more Hispanics in Texas. Hispanics have been voting more than 2:1 for Hillary.
Hillary has done better in primaries.
At some point, the Obama campaign has to get past their “mob rule” caucus mentality and start offering some substance.
I don’t blame Obama for this, but some of the people around him have to start becoming suspect if Obama doesn’t start offering more substance.
If not, if I were advising Hillary, I’d have her quoting the late Clara Peller via Walter Mondale–”where’s the beef”?
“mo” means money, at least according to Randy.
Mr. C, I heard Obama on 60 Minutes last night address the campaign being unspecific. His explanation was in the beginning he was criticized for being too specific so now the specifics are available to anyone who wants to ask specific questions and on his website.
For which I have done–repeatedly.
I think the key states to watch will be PA and OH – not TX. The reason: these are swing ‘purple’ states. The super delegates will pay attention to them. TX, like KS, is solidly red so doesn’t really matter as much.
Vaughn. Concur with your evaluation. I came up with “more” having read about more money flowing in.
Or “more” delegates. Your heading would be more appropriate.
From what I understand, Texas is both a caucus state and a primary state. Can’t imagine how that works, but they were talking about it on Fox News Sunday morning. So if Obama can do as well in the caucus part as he has been doing with caucuses, he may make Texas a really close race, even without the hispanic vote.
Mo money, mo money, mo money.
More bad news for Obama supporters. Despite his rapid gains – I just heard on the nightly news that most of the super delegates are pledged to Clinton.
Many apparently are old Clinton croonies. MSNBC announced that Bill Clinton spent most of the day on the telephone with supers. 45 minutes with one delegate alone!
They said the plan is to get the super delegates to announce now, to stop Obama’s momentum.
To all those who have worked hard for Obama and took the time to stand in long lines to vote for him. Sorry about that. Your vote doesn’t count.
(or my own)
Read it here first. Now go confirm.
Saturday night I went to a family get-to-gather and had a chance to talk briefly with two relatives who are supportive of Sen. Clinton. They point to her experience at a time when the country is facing financial woes and threats to our national security. I mentioned that some supporters are more for her simply because they see her as a stab at the Republicans and will play a game of catch-up. They looked at each other then said “Yeah”.
I was not surprised when Hillary took Oklahoma, having lived there they tend to be rather conservative and can see her as being the same.
You didn’t have a problem with the process when Bush won the White House despite Gore’s win.
This policy was in place before this came about. There was a reason for it. Amway, your little trick, they’re onto it. The superdelegates aren’t going to fall for it.
“There are only 10 basic laws that we need … the reason that the law is more complicated is because we try to find clever ways around those 10.”
– Mike Huckabee, on legal reform
gosh, any guess as to what 10 “laws” the super-christian is talking about?
Sigh…
“MO” here CLEARLY is meant as “momentum”.
And yeah Obama has some. But I am troubled by who some of it comes from.
In a speech today Obama says people whisper to him in rope lines “I’m supporting you and I’m a Republican.”
Obama’s answer “Why are we whispering?”
This PROUD embrace of a party that had as its last major goal the total destruction of the Democratic party is unsettling.
Maybe “MO” should be M O as in method of operation. Which in Obama’s case seems to be political pandering.
Oh and by the way Randy?
Yeah we get it, you’re for Obama.
I’m not seeing updated posts again. Test 123.
This PROUD embrace of a party . . .
JR–
There’s a big difference of embracing the Republic PARTY like Joe LIEberman does and embracing Republicans who realize that their party in its present state sucks blue whale.
The attraction for Latinos for Clinton is puzzling.
My theory is that the recent immigrants anyway are as moved by Obama’s inspirational English as we are moved by Lorca’s inspirational Spanish.
In other words, it loses something in the translation.
Check out that picture of Obama above and the picture of Bush below.
Obama: revered, embraced, reaching out, beloved.
Bush: renounced in solitary rebuke.
There is nothing to lose in the translation when one is speaking of hope and the other is speaking policy.
I don’t know what will happen with Latino voters in Texas, but I don’t think the California experience will necessarily prevail in Texas. California ia very much a union state, and the United Farm Workers endorsed Clinton. The same will not be true in Texas. We’ll soon see. I also think, the longer this campaign goes, the more difficult it will be for Clinton to keep us with Obama’s finances – which is an odd situation since only Clinto accepts PAC funds. And momentum can be infectious.
If either candidate wins Ohio and Texas convincingly, that will be the candidate who goes on to the nomination. If the votes there are split or close, the race continues to Pennsylvania and even beyond. The media seem to have a limited attention span, and a need to get a decision now, but, really, the election isn’t until November. There’s time for Democrats to sort out their options. I for one think Republicans were too quick to discard some potentially appealing choices based on early results.
I think he can do well in Ohio and Pennsylvania but Texas is a big ????. Texas has lots of Mexicans- in fact they may be a majority there now and the Mexicans have been the biggest of Clinton supporters (almost 2 to 1).
The Superdelegates will not over turn the results of the primary elections. To do so would insure the destruction of the Democratic Party. They are not that stupid.
George Herbert Walker Bush, who skillfully butchered the English language almost as much as his son, famously referred to momentum as “the big Mo”.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/14/schneider.giuliani/index.html
One Trackback
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]