Winning the lunch pail crowd against Obama does not make Hillary president. Hillary would need to win that crowd, and more, against McCain. And against McCain, Obama wins, not Hillary.

It's very hard for me to understand this kind of punditry. Why not just look at what the polls have been saying again and again for a year and a half instead of trying to come up with this overly clever tea-leaves nonsense?

obama beat mccain and huckabee combined in ohio. im not so sure we can extrapolate good analysis of electability from primary results if the democratic candidates are getting so many more votes than republicans in primaries than otherwise.

Look at Annie's post further down. Ohio won't win it for her if she can't win the states whose blueness we take for granted.

I'd say the Reagan lunch-pail crowd is more swayed by negative advertising than by any key character issue that Hillary Clinton claims to have.

"biting their fingernails last night"

Wow, you really grabbed on to the "this is a real nail-biter" meme/colloquialism getting thrown around last night.

Your point about upstate new york against republicans is insanely weak. Neither of the candidates she had to run against were strong in any way.

Too bad Giuliani got cancer in 2000. Otherwise this whole nightmare with her trying to ruin the Democratic party and disenfranchise a new generation of young voters might not have happened.

@6,

Alan Keyes

you should be nervous!

I love how you distance yourself from the dumbass Urban Archipelago idea now, characterizing it as a "pep talk." Geez,just admit it was a bad idea.

Look, Clinton won nothing yesterday. She is down in the delegate count as much today as she was yesterday. Further more, a Clinton candidacy is a disaster for the Democratic party. Extensive polling has shown that Obama easily wins against McCain, while showning Clinton barely able to win against McCain.(some polls show her actually losing to McCain) In the long term, an Obama candidacy builds the Democratic party across the country, and invigorates the races down ballot, while a Clinton candidacy has an opposite effect. As to the much bally-hooed "big state theory" put forward by the Clinton camp, these are the same clowns that lost the 2000 and 2004 elections, and that backed the one losing candidate in the 2006 race. (Ford in Tennesee)Their record is proof of their political incomptence. From a purely strategic vantage point, Obama is the candidate that makes sense. Not that there is any difference between the two... there isn't. But in November, one wins the White House and builds a majority in the House and Senate, (Obama) and one barely wins the White House and destroys the chance for building a majority in the House and Senate. (Clinton) Take your pick.

News Flash: Final Texas Delegate count is ... dead even, possible Obama lead.

Um, yeah, that's how elections work in a delegate system.

Once again, Clinton is fighting tactically (dirty) and Obama is fighting strategically (clean win).

Where's that 20 point Latino vote edge Clinton was supposed to have?

Vaporized.

I'm sick of this crap. After the 2004 debacle, where a progressive and potent Howard Dean was pushed aside in favor of a more "electable" John Kerry (who had the personality of a damp sock), I have no faith in the idea that a "practical political remedy" involves voting for someone that you don't like because everyone else might sorta kinda like them a little more.

Pointing out that Obama's senate opponent was weak doesn't say a damn thing about Clinton's opponents. Hillary beat a couple of non-entities (and cut a promising young Democratic woman off at the knees in the process).

And repeat after me: beating Obama (or Clinton) is not the same as beating McCain. All arguments that suppose that candidates can't win states they lost in the primary are ridiculously inept and heavy-handed spin attempts.

@7, I would argue that Keyes was not a strong candidate. He transplanted himself from Maryland only to replace the Republican frontrunner, not as the frontrunner.

@10, we spent the last two Democratic elections supporting the candidate who was was allegedly strongest against Bush and we still lost. Six months ago, Hillary was well ahead of Obama. Now, she is behind albeit still very close. Polls can change. Obama hasn't fared well against attacks (some legitimate, some not) and I fear that continued conflict from the Republicans will make him weaker, whereas it seems conflict makes HRC stronger. Now that the media is catching onto Obama's weaknesses, the polls will change and HRC's inherent strengths will push her ahead. I have no doubts about her abilities. I very much doubt Obama's.

As a final point, for many supporters of Obama who endorse his message of unification, it seems that many are being awfully divisive. I would love to see an HRC/BHO ticket (or BHO/HRC to a lesser extent).

Will @ 11

Where did you get that News Flash about Texas delegates? All Texas sites I just checked show Clinton ahead, even with Obama winning the caucuses.

Josh,

I've sorta lost track amidst all these slog posts. Have you outed yourself yet about who your support for prez?

No, #14 - we're rejecting divisiveness, in all of its forms, including "Clinton." I'm not going to vote for the same crap as always. I'm not going to vote for a candidate whose ego forces her to potentially ruin what could have been a transformational election that could have built the party for years (based on young voters, independents and some liberal Republicans).

And Josh - some others are right, you're over thinking it. Do we really think that Obama is going to lose more Democrats than he's going to gain in independents? Do you think he'll lose more blue states than purple/red states he'll win? Right now he runs with or ahead of McCain in Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas - some of which we'll have to win if we want a Dem. in the White House. What state that Kerry lost does she put into play that Obama doesn't? Ohio is probably the best argument, but Kerry lost that one - can't we win with Virginia instead? (Texas was too close to say that about - they both could be competitive there, especially if latinos or blacks go with the other candidate).

Dems. have lost 2 presidential elections now by relying on the old Dem. coalitions. It didn't work. Obama at least offers the possibility to maintain most of that coalition, while also bringing new people into the party (either new voters or switchers). And, trust me, the young people that are involved now could be consolidated into the party for years if we're successful here. If we're not, many, many of them will go away. They're mostly involved for Obama, not against anyone else.

I'm glad the Obama/Hillary contest is going to continue for awhile. We don't need months of McCain Vs.Nominee. That campaign is going to be an ugly thing to watch, and I'd rather put it off a while yet.

@15 - it's on politico.com - think it was posted after Midnite. No, I don't post there, just surf.

Thank you, Ed. You gave some of the strongest arguments for Obama that I have heard. This honestly makes me feel better about Obama potentially receiving the nomination.

However, I am skeptical about the amount of change and unity that will actually happen with Obama. After all, his policies (although less detailed at this point) are very similar to hers, right?

If in fact unity is to be achieved then it will be by the people, not Obama himself. If he is to provide unity for the people then he is yet to do it by means of his supporters. Of course, this is just an argument based on what I have perceived by the interactions I have had with them (but what else is there, really?). Therefore, I am not convinced that he can provide
a transformational Presidency.

Lastly, I don't believe that her ego is getting her voters. If Obama were slightly behind, I don't think people would argue that his ego was keeping him in the race. I would call that confidence. In sum, I think most Democratic voters would vote for either candidate despite their respective disappointments.

@15 - i sent it in to the Stranger for SLOG - numerous places, first showed up on politico.com late last night, is now on front page of PI website and Times website here in Seattle.

You snooze, you lose.

When fighting a war, strategy trumps tactics 99.9 percent of the time.