Timeline

Two hundred nineteen years ago the new nation ratified a Constitution that enshrined both fundamental guarantees of liberty and the institution of slavery.

One hundred and eight years ago, the Supreme Court decided Plessy v. Ferguson, effectively gutting the constitutional attempt to guarantee newly freed slaves real equality. Plessy would remain the law of the land for fifty eight years.

Sixty years ago the cold war with the Communist world began. It would be fought in the main as a chess match in former colonies in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and America's moves would not infrequently include supporting dictators and erstwhile colonists.

Forty Four years ago Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act and famously declared that Democrats had lost the South for a generation.

Yesterday the still-young country elected as President the son of a former subject of British colonial rule in Africa.

My head still swims at the thought.

Is Arizona Obama's Head Fake?

For political junkies, the question of week is why is Obama bothering to advertise in Arizone. Sure the polls show him within striking distance -- in some cases even within the MoE. But they consistently show McCain ahead and the RCP average puts him outside the MoE.

Futhermore, as 538 demostrates, Arizona pretty much can't make a difference in any conceivable scenario. That is to say, it's impossible to imagine Obama surging enough in Arizona to win but losing enough other states that he actually needs the ten electoral votes.

One hypothesis offered by Chris Cillizza is that the Arizona ad buy is a signal to the electorate as a whole that the race is in hand. As an alternative consider this. By going after McCain's home state, Obama could deke his proud opponent into abandoning his game plan and doing something rash. Like, say, cutting way back on GOTV for a last minute ad buy.

Anyone passingly familiar with Obama's biography knows his lifelong love of basketball. You've got to admire his head fake. Just hope he doesn't miss the layup.

Barack the Halloween Night

For the past four years I've carved a political pumpkin to go along with the more conventional efforts of my kids. Past examples of my work are here and here.

All love to Obama, this year he made it easy. Here's my Jack O'Bama:



And it looks really cool in the dark.



Can't tell you how good it is not to be carving a bunch of lettering.

New Nanosite Takes on Dobson's Take on Obama

Yesterday Dr. James Dobson, one of the most influential evangelical opinion makers, dusted off a 2006 Obama speech about faith in the public sphere and trashed it. Today God-o-Meter notes that a nanosite (remember them?) is up: James Dobson Doesn't Speak for Me.

Named as an organizer is one Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, pastor of a Houston megachurch. While Rev. Kirbyjon has been on the O Train from early in the cycle, he is also a friend of W. Bush. So the Reverend is probably left of center politically, but not someone likely to be painted as another Jeremiah Wright.

The site features a good side-by-side of Dobson's remarks and what Obama actually said. As of now if a transcript of Dobson's rant is available it's hard to locate, meaning you have to listen to all 18 minutes of it which, no thanks. But based on the JDDSFM website, it looks like most of what Dobson objects to and calls undemocratic or inimical to his freedoms is a wild misreading of what Obama was saying. Check for yourself.

Endgame: Obama Akron Watch Party Tomorrow Night.

Default Dem hangout Bricco is the place to be. RSVP with Obama's campaign here.

Ezra Klein on the Politics of Testosterone

Excellent piece by Klein touching on many salient points. The hook is buzz about Jim Webb as Obama's running mate. Klein notes that trying to out-macho Republicans is a losing game:

But this is not a sustainable approach to politics. Democrats can't out-tough the GOP. It's possible that James Webb can do it. But he's sui generis; a Democrat who can win at politics when played under Republican rules.

What's special about Obama:

[Obama's] policies -- particularly his domestic policies -- have not been half as innovative as his politics. But his willingness to double down on opposition to the gas tax holiday, to battle back on negotiating with dictators, to respond to attacks by pressing the point, has been genuinely exciting. And though he has been confident and even aggressive in all of this, he has not been "tough." He has not pretended to go shooting, or driven on to Jay Leno's show on Harley. He's essentially been making his own rules.

And the paradox of women in politics:

Meanwhile, the sexism of our politics was far less present in Clinton's loss than the fact that she was the single woman on a stage of nine Democratic presidential candidates, and in a field, including the Republicans, of 20. Now, studies show that women do not, in fact, perform worse in primaries than men. In fact, in Democratic primaries, the evidence since 1990 is that they do better (see my article in the forthcoming American Prospect for more on this). But they run less often -- for a host of reasons, but one of which is that they think they're more likely to lose.

And more besides that. Go. Read. Now.

Oh, before you do, let's drop this idea of Webb as a running mate. The idea misunderstands Obama's greatest weakness -- it's lack of experience, not lack of manliness. He needs a running mate who is well-seasoned in government, preferably with some administrative experience, and from a part of the country that allows him to do some good. I'm not sure who that is, but those should be the criteria.

Blue Ohioan Is Back Up

Blue Ohioan founder Anthony Fossaceca just posted an impassioned argument for Hillary Clinton, hopefully reviving the long-dormant blog. The post makes me a little wistful about what could have been -- passionate supporters focusing on each candidates strengths. Instead we got Hillary nutcrackers and dismissive rants about Barack the "Unity Pony." Most unfortunate.

And unfortunate that circumstances didn't permit Anthony to post sooner. As I wrote in his comments:

[T]his post . . . was a great argument three months ago. If Toxic Susie had written like this, Blue Ohioan would have remained readable.

But the election is what it is. It's not impossible for Hillary to win, but it is impossible for her to win without overturning the clear will of the voters, thus tearing the party apart. Aside from some sharp-elbowed tactics and winking approval of the race bias against her opponent, what really has Obama's supporters in an uproar is that continuing to press her case is damaging the party and successfully pressing her case would be disastrous.

Meanwhile, I've been thinking about the complaint from Hillary supporters about the pro-Obama/anti-Hillary bias in the media. There is probably something to it, or at least more than is within my biased perception (and probably less than the pro-Hillary biased perception.) Nonetheless, it's all one with a flawed pro-Hillary electability argument that boils down to: Obama has little going for him except his charisma and political skill which has generated a core of wildly passionate followers, tons of money in small donations and favorable media coverage. Which is too bad because Hillary is more electable.

To which the discerning reader says, "Huh?"

CORRECTED With the link.

Meet Bill Rausch, OPD Veterans Caucus Director and Obama Activist

The ODP dropped this in the ebag today:

COLUMBUS - The Ohio Democratic Party today announced the hiring of former Army Captain, Iraq War veteran and Marengo, Ohio, native Bill Rausch as the full-time director of the newly formed Veterans and Family Members Caucus. The Ohio Democratic Party is now one of only two state Democratic parties in the country to employ a director of veterans and military family outreach, signaling the party's intention to aggressively fight for the votes of this historically Republican-leaning constituency in the 2008 election and beyond.

After past tragic experiences, we've learned to always Google those whom the ODP hires. That yielded this interesting video posted by the Obama campaign.




First off, Capt. Rausch is an excellent and sincere speaker and I look forward to watching his work as Caucus Director.

Second, the fact that ODP hired someone with his very public record as an Obama supporter suggests one of two things. Either they still aren't Googling their job applicants (certainly a possibility) or the party as a whole is sufficiently confident that Obama will be the guy that they aren't worried about pro-Hillary blowback.

Finally, I bet Rausch could beat the crap out of John Ettorre.

Post-Penna Posturing

Emails to supporters after the Pennsylvania primary. First Barack:

Pho:

Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.

In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.

Thanks to your support, with just 9 contests remaining, we've won more delegates, more votes, and twice as many contests.

We hold a commanding position, but there are two crucial contests coming up -- voters will head to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana in exactly two weeks. And we're already building our organization in the other remaining states.

But it's clear the attacks are going to continue, and we're going to continue fighting a two-front battle against John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

And Hillary:

Dear Pho:

Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you.

There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line.

Thanks so much for all you do.

FWIW Barack makes a donation request and hillary does not.

Hmm. Barack's right about closing the gap, which he did in New Hampshire, Ohio and Texas as well. But he didn't close the deal. And in at least a couple of those states, it was in part due to some late-in-the-contest missteps.

Hillary on the other hand sounds like she's not just looking at a new landscape, but an entirely different planet. Here's what Slate's Delegate Calculator says:

Coming into today, the odds that Clinton would catch Obama in pledged delegates were very small. Now they're zero. Before Pennsylvania, Clinton needed to win each remaining primary with 65 percent of the vote to close the gap. Even though she won Pennsylvania, that figure is now just over 68 percent. . . Furthermore, the state with the most remaining delegates is North Carolina, where Obama leads in the polls by about 20 points. Assuming he nets at least 20 more of the state's 115 delegates, Clinton needs 80 percent of the vote in each of the other eight remaining primaries to catch up.

But of course, Hillary is not talking about the pledged delegate landscape, she's talking the virtual landscape of superdelegate psychology. Her strategy for the endgame is 1) mitigate losses in pledged delegates, 2) make a putatively democracy-based argument for including the Florida and Michigan delegates so that 3) it gets her in shouting range of Obama's pledged delegate count and 4) she can make the anti-democratic argument that superdelegates should overturn the primary results and slot her in.

We'll try to flesh out Hillary's intellectually vacuous argument in a later post. For now, know this -- new landscape or not, it's still a steep uphill for Hillary.

Oh, and I should acknowledge being butt-licking wrong on my predictions. The triumph of hope over experience.

Final PA Predictions

Over at Pollster.com we get this assessment of the polling trends:

Clinton has increased her lead in the trend estimates over the course of the last polls to 6.6 points using the standard estimator, and to 8.4 points using the sensitive estimate. Last minute polls have given her bigger margins.

Now the key question is whether undecideds push her over a 10 point win, or whether increases in turnout by new "unlikely" voters raises Obama's total.

My guess is the latter. First, the weather is nice. More importantly, Obama's money and grassroots volunteer strength hopefully have translated to a superior GOTV organization.

While Team Hillary has run out the same "If he doesn't win he's a loser" argument they threw against the wall before Ohio, I hope the media maintains a realistic BTE/WTE. Right now the line is a 7-8% Hillary advantage. Six or less is BTE for Obama; I'll put my final prediction at five. Anything over nine is WTE and makes closing that much harder.

Once again Obama had a chance to put Hillary away and once again he has let her up off the mat, this time with his ill-advised speculation about bitter Pennsylvanians. Whatever spin Ohio bloggers may want to put on it, he gaffed in a bad way and will have to make his case in Denver as a result.

Hillary's Anti-Bruce Ad [Parody]

The folks at Slate Magazine who gave us "Hillary Clinton's Inner Tracy Flick" are at it again. This time they imagine the next Hillary ad attacking Obama through his supporters.

Obama's Campaign Jack Makes Hillary Sad

The Hillary campaign is taking a break from telling me to sign a petition against The Horrible Injustice Done to Michigan and Florida for a new cringe-inducing tack. The email goes like this:

Dear [Pho]:

With 14 days to go until the people of Pennsylvania vote, the Obama campaign has decided to go all-out. They're trying to end the race for the White House with an unyielding media blitz. Right now, we're being outspent 4-1 on Pennsylvania television.

So now, here's what we have to ask ourselves: Have we come this far in our history-making contest for the Democratic nomination only to see the race decided not by the quality of our ideas but by the size of our opponent's media budget?

To paraphrase Jim Rome, Obama spends a lot of money because he has a lot of money. And he has a lot of money because over a million people (myself included) have given him money. He doesn't have a lot of money because his spouse pulls in a quarter million per for speaking engagements. And his self-imposed restriction on lobbyist money, though not perfect, has limited the money he's gotten with an expectation of future consideration.

So now here's question we really have to ask ourselves: What does it say about the two campaigns that one has generated such excitement that people have given more than votes and the other hasn't?

And it goes deeper than that. Remember all the stories about Hillary hiring canvassers in Ohio? It suggests she has burned more money on staff than Obama has because he brings out more volunteers. In a study of contrasts, my Obama email today didn't ask for money. It asked for Ohioans to make the roady to PA to help out. For obvious reasons, Hillary's contributor list hasn't gotten that email.

When they are not defending democracy, Hillary's flak cloud argues that the democratic result should be overturned because she is more electable based on her performance in big states. She doesn't understand that Obama's war chest is a far more compelling electability argument,

Lecturing Team Hillary.

OK, I'm NOT talking to Hillary herself. Because we all know that it's wrong to blame Hillary for the trash her political allies talk, even as Obama is called out about anyone who's had a cup of coffee in a campaign office. Because that's just fair.

So I'm not talking to Hillary, but some apparently misbegotten campaign allies have been trotting out the argument that Barack Obama dishonestly stated he served as a Constitutional Law professor at University of Chigago Law School when he in fact was a lecturer.

No really.

Chicago's press release debunking the silliness should put this to bed. But Juan Williams, who is determined to squander all traces of credibility to be NPR's resident Hill Honk, insisted that the school was "just splitting hairs."

The context of Obama invoking his teaching experience is generally along the lines of "I've been a Con Law professor, so unlike the President I understand and respect the Constitution." In my experience, the primary difference between a lecturer and a professor is that a lecturer is paid relatively little. If someone says "I can afford that 5 Series because I lecture about Con Law," that's probably overclaiming. If someone says he has credibility about things constitutional because he's a law school lecturer, it's legit.

Every time I think the Hillary campaign is settling into a groove of merely harsh campaigning, they lower their own bar. This latest spasm of fratricidal zeal mimics that right wing noise machine the attacks on Al Gore. The methodology in 2000 was to take some statement Gore made about his accomplishments, deliberately misread it, and generate a narrative that he was a serial exaggerator. Seeing that particular flavor of slime thrown on a Dem by a Dem really hurts.

Scrying the net for news of all this, I ran across a post on the U of Chi Law Faculty Blog from October 2006 written by the estimable Cass Sunstein. Bear in mind that this is long before anyone questioned whether Obama was a real member of the faculty.

There is a lot to say about Senator Obama and his time at the University of Chicago Law School. (He remains affiliated with the law school, and he has an office on the fifth floor -- though the list of faculty members notes, in a way that seems at once proud and forlorn, that he is now "out of residence.") He was, and is, widely admired by students and faculty alike -- and entirely across political divisions. How well I remember past elections in which faculty members, who disagreed on a great deal, agreed that Obama would be a magnificent addition to the United States Congress. I think their agreement resulted from Obama's character (he's a genuinely wonderful guy), his evident ability and sheer excellence (for example, he's a terrific teacher, and we tried to convince him to join the faculty full-time on several occasions), and his independence and unpredictability (he toes no party line; he knows how markets work, and how government can make things worse).

For those of you not in the know, a write up like this from Sunstein is tantamount to Michael Jordan saying you got game.

Just the Right Amount of Black

ver the course of the week we’ve had Obama’s speech on race, and the reaction to the speech and the reaction to the reaction to the speech, and now we are starting to boil down to some meta-points. My first blush reaction was that the speech was so on target, so uplifting, that any attempt to denigrate it would be simple-minded partisan hackery. I blush to admit my naiveté, but I was genuinely shocked at the level derision directed at Obama, post-speech.

While there has been plenty of reaction that is mere hackery¹, the near broadly negative reaction on the right can’t simply be dismissed out of hand. Rather, reaction to Obama’s speech on some level is something of a Rorschach for how people view race and racism, which follows something of a left-right divide.

People who felt the speech fell short tend to believe that a white expression of racism toward blacks is exactly the same in all respects as black expression of racism toward whites. A lot of comments fall along the lines of “what if a white candidate had attended a church where the preacher preached segregation . . .?”² Obama’s speech begins with an assumption black racism³ is not the same as White racism, and appeals more to those of us who take a more nuanced view.

Under the latter view, racism expressed by blacks is wrong, but of carries less moral and practical consequence than white racism. black racism, as explained by Obama arises from the long history of racial oppression – three centuries during which people were kidnapped from Africa to be sold as chattel, followed by another century during which their decedents were assigned to the bottom rung of a racial cast system.

White racism on the other hand perpetuates a legacy of hatred in service to centuries of oppression, oppression that for most of those centuries materially and psychically benefited the oppressors. One is a form of human weakness, meriting approbation but nonetheless understandable. The other is a legacy of, and perpetuates, a great evil.

The practical consequences of black vs. white racism are also different. Make no mistake, black racism has dire consequences. One of my classes will soon be reading Wisconsin v. Mitchell in which the state applies a hate crimes statute to black defendants who assault a white man simply because he is white. But those consequences are several orders of magnitude lower than the consequences of white racism which, again, seeks on some level to perpetuate the oppression of black Americans.

Both the black racism expressed by Rev. Wright and the racism-as-equivalent model embraced by much of white America offer facile sound bites for discussing race. In truth, the question of race in America is far more complex, historical, layered and nuanced than the bumper-sticker level discussions too prevalent among both blacks and whites. Obama’s speech was special because, in the context of a political campaign – a context in which nuance is generally considered a deadly sin – he embraced all that complexity and spoke about it with heartbreaking eloquence.

It’s less of a surprise then that the speech failed to touch people, especially on the right, who believe that racism is racism. If that is your model – if Rev. Wright and Bull Connor are equivalents – the only solution for Obama is to cut him loose. And in fact, Obama probably can’t redeem himself even with that extreme move because he already tolerated the intolerable for too long. If a listener is unwilling to acknowledge the complexity of race in America, exploring that complexity seems like so much artifice.

A few weeks ago NPR reported about how Second City is satirizing the primary. In one skit a white man explains his attraction to Obama with the line I’ve appropriated for this post⁴. Like all great political satire, the line works both as a funny-as-hell punchline and a profound truth. Personally, it doesn’t bother me that Obama is just the right amount of black. It doesn’t mean he’s inauthentic. It means he’s more authentic – embracing what is good about his community, but refusing to fall into the easy radicalism that afflicts so much of that community.

Among the most appalling things Rev. Wright said were the accusations that the government developed AIDS to kill blacks and that the government is behind the traffic of drugs into black communities. As appalling as those views are to middle class white folks like myself, the fact is, a large percentage of the Black community holds those views to one degree or another. No black politician could be a part of the community and not have close associates who share similar views.

Simply saying “That’s wrong” isn’t enough to move people off of ultimately such self-destructive dogmas. Simply deriding such ideas as the lies they are is not enough. It will take leaders who are willing to both understand the history and pain in which they are rooted, then offer alternatives. What alternatives? Some might call it hope.

The Rev. Wright controversy has hurt Obama terribly. As of now, it’s not clear that the speech helped enough. Obama may be just the right amount of Black for me; time will tell if he’s too much black for America.

¹One oft-made point that should be dismissed as hackery is the allegation that Obama joined Trinity in the first place for black street cred. For example a comment to LisaRenee runs it here and Blumer approvingly sites a righty making that point here. And it’s crap. In the first place, it is always a dicey proposition questioning the sincerity of another person’s faith. Generally it’s an accusation anyone can level and no one can disprove. But in this case, we have evidence that points to the opposite conclusion. Obama wrote of his conversion experience in his first book, long before he sought elected office. And lest anyone argue that he had long term plans to do so, remember what else is in that book and what he was doing at the time. Working as an inner city community organizer and simultaneously writing a memoir admitting adolescent drug use is not part of anyone’s long term plan for political success.

² Which would make this whole discussion very interesting indeed if either Romney or Huckabee were still in the race, given the racist pasts of their respective churches.

³I’m using the term “black racism” to describe racial animus expressed by blacks toward whites generally. Black animus toward other racial groups or Jews or gays or women adds yet another dimension to the whole discussion.

⁴Incidentally, the report noted that Mr. and Mrs. Obama saw the show and liked it.

Thougths After the Debate

bviously you can discount this as biased because I'm an Obama supporter, but by the end of the debate, it seemed that Clinton had pretty much discounted whatever rationales she had left for her candidacy. Recall her "For shame!" tirade about the mailings -- by the debate it had revolved into a civil factual disagreement. That mocking speech from last Saturday? -- now it's just a way to let off steam during a tough campaign.

Obama could afford to be gracious and acknowledge that Clinton is a substantive candidate -- his campaign is predicated on his superior gifts as a politician. His campaign narrative says that he is more likely to get elected and more likely to successfully rally the people to demand political change.

Hillary's narrative is that Obama is inexperienced and insubstantial. As such, she was in the unenviable position of needing to attack right after he acted the gentleman. If she had attacked it may well have been judged a gaffe. But instead the debate ended with Obama having shown that he is substantive and experience, but a better leader, and Clinton having conceded that he is substantive and experienced but that, well, maybe she has a bit of an edge or something.

Add to that the extreme difficulty finding a sliver of daylight between their positions on most issues, and you are left with two solid candidates, one with a broader skill set, one who has basically been alive longer.

The general consensus was that Hillary needed a clear win and didn't get it. True, but she actually lost ground by conceding so much.

A Couple Words Before the Debate Starts

First, I'm not planning to liveblog this. Nor did I make it to the Highland watch party.

There are two possible strategies Obama could have going in. First, he could think that he essentially needs only to hold serve. That he has scored enough in the early games (and has broken Hillary a time or two) so that he need not take any real risks. Basically, if he avoids a gaffe, he will continue to coast to the win, or at least a strong finish here and a win in Texas.

Second theory, he needs to break Hillary -- he can't remain essentially tied. He needs to take a couple of risks, including the risk of a gaffe and the risk of alienating a chunk of the electorate.

What will be most interesting to me is what sort of gameplan we can divine by how Obama presents himself.

See you on the other side.

Wingnut Talk Show Host Bashes Obama, Get Souljah'd by McCain

Cincy Enquirer just posted video of local right wing radio yapper Bill Cunningham going off on Obama, followed by McCain apologizing and rebuking him. According to the accompanying story:

Cunningham was critical of the national news media, saying that sooner or later, the media would begin covering Obama's "sweetheart deals in Chicago and the illegal loans he got in Chicago.''

He also called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politican'' and twice used Obama's middle name Hussein, referring to him as "Barack Hussein Obama.''

Cunningham also pictured a day a year from now when Obama is in the White House and meeting with a rogues gallery of world leaders like Ahmadinejiad and Kim Jong Il.

All in all, fairly tame stuff for local winger radio, but McCain was having none of it:

"I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said," Sen. McCain told reporters after the rally at Memorial Hall in Over-the-Rhine.

* * *

"I will not tolerate anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen. (Hillary) Clinton,'' McCain said after the rally.

Cunningham's response was as predictable as it was sad:

Cunningham said later that he stood by his comments. He told his listeners: ‘”I’ve had it with McCain. I’m going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

It's been a puzzle why the right wing hates McCain so much. He is, after all, reliably conservative on what are supposedly the sentinel issues -- abortion and national security. Now we have one explanation -- he's uncomfortable with being an asshole.

Obama in Akron Roundup

bligations kept me from Sen. Barack Obama's appearance in Akron last night. Fortunately, the posts and articles are springing up covering the event.

So far, PsychoBilly and Radio Free Newport have posted extensively on their impressions of the evening. Extra points for PBD for keying in on the presence of Rep. Tim Ryan.

In addition, local blogger Andrew Shears posted extensively, with photos, on the Obama website. And by the way, if you want to get involved with the campaign, joining the Akron, Ohio for Obama group is a good place to start.

The Obama campaign posted the following excerpt from the Akron speech on YouTube this morning. This one takes on Clinton's criticism earlier today of the campaign mailer regarding NAFTA and the one questioning her health care proposal:



Shifting to the media, the ABJ offers a strong write-up, plus a slideshow (BTW, that's Judge Annalissa Williams in the first photo, unless I'm very much mistaken.) And WKSU has a long M.L. Shultze report, with audio from the speech.

Obama in Akron Tonight

n the off chance you haven't heard yet, Obama will be here tonight for a rally downtown. Details:

John S. Knight Center
77 E. Mill St.
Akron, OH 44308

Saturday, February 23, 2008
Doors open: 4:00 p.m.
Program begins: 5:30 p.m.

The event is free and open to the public. Tickets are not required, but an RSVP is strongly encouraged.

Here at the House of Pho, we are celebrating Kid Z's 11th birthday, so I will not be attending. No doubt the Chief Source guys will have some art up at some point.

More generally, I apologize to all those who have generously sent me info or are waiting to see a promised post appear. I have been pretty much buried lately and, in an exercise of extreme will, have succeed in keeping the blog as the lowest priority. I'll keep putting stuff up as I have time, but more likely than not, will continue to spend large swaths of time in the basement.

Now I'm a Believer

h, I've certainly believed in Obama's smarts, and eloquence and political acumen. And I've believed that some day he would be a great president. And I've believed that he could be a transformative political figure. And I've believed all along that nominating Hillary could be a disaster come November.

But until last night, I haven't really believed that Obama could actually get the nomination.

Partly I haven't believed because his inexperience genuinely is a negative, and early on in the race it showed. His Houston speech last night dramatized how much he's grown just in the short (by human standards, not by campaign standards) time he's been running.

Partly also, I haven't believed because my guy never wins. Literally, since I've been following politics, my choice even among the last two standing has not gotten to the November ballot. And my first pick over all? Forget about it. Starting with Mo Udall in 1976, I've had an unerring talent in rooting for the also-ran.¹ While I was late-ish coming around to Obama², I'm sufficiently excited about his campaign that it seemed likely the Pho Curse would victimize him as well.

And then there were the Texas and Ohio poll results. While Hillary's firewall strategy is now immolating around her, it was based on some sound ideas at the time. If she can sweep Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania, she can pull something close to even with Obama in delegates. As the establishment favorite, Hillary is essentially the House. And if you've ever played blackjack you know ties go to the House.

So I haven't been optimistic.

Last night's 17-point drubbing was the low point in a Hillary Clinton campaign that has already seen deep lows and shows no sign of slowing its descent. She campaigned in Wisconsin, getting poll results showing that she was closing and prompted speculation that her latest charge -- Barack the plagiarizer -- might have traction.

All for naught. She got crushed by the Cheeseheads. The commentariat view last night was that Ohio is "just like Wisconsin" -- i.e. Midwestern and blue collar. That's not entirely true -- Northern Ohio is, but nothing in Wisconsin is like southern Ohio. Still, the exit polling showed Obama with some nice-looking demographics. The Wisconsin win came on the heels of a SUSA poll showing a decline in Hillary's support. That decline is within the MOE, but still, that's the sort of trend that Barack needs if he is to close Hillary's considerable lead here.

And if he does, it's over. If Hillary cannot close here, she's done. Plenty are saying she's done anyway, but she can't lose here where she has the support of the popular Governor and much of the rest of the establishment, where she has been campaigning hard while Barack was keeping fires stoked in the Potomac states, then Wisconsin, and where the demographics are as favorable to her as they will ever be. Even if she lets Obama close the gap, she has a tough time maintaining the argument that she's the stronger candidate to take on McCain.

¹ In case you're interested, Gary Hart in '84 (yeah, I know), either Paul Tsongas or Paul Simon in '88, Bob Kerry in '92, Bill Bradley in '00.

²I really liked Bill "The Resume" Richardson before he started pandering on Iraq. If I could waive a magic wand, Joe Biden would be the nominee. Problem was, with three good guys (those two plus Dodd) in the second tier, none had a chance at the sort of close fourth that might have made for an interesting run.