Meet the New Frontrunner

Voices as diverse as John Cole, Chris Bowers and Al Giordano make persuasive cases that Barack Obama is now the favorite for the Democratic nomination, and who am I to disagree? They're viewing Obamania from the front row while I'm just up here in the bleachers rooting for the out-of-towners. Besides, the media message has turned - now it's Obama with the fundraising machine, Obama with the old-school endorsements, Obama with the caucus fixers.

So what if the coveted Perez Hilton and Jack Nicholson endorsements (as well as those minor demographic groups known as Latinos and women) apparently trumped Teddy "Esta Aqui" Kennedy, Oprah and Maria Shriver out in California - the torch has been passed to a new generation of high expectations, and they're Barack Obama's to love and cherish.

The new media storyline is this - a virtual dead heat last night validates the newcomer - "tie goes to runner" or "ground can't cause a fumble" - who is now widely expected to sweep every primary from here to March, while Senator Clinton's campaign is broke, demoralized, and running on fumes. Turns out Lance Mannion was right, and even though Obama's campaign couldn't possibly live up to its followers' out-sized expectations of wins in Massachusetts, New Jersey and California, the narrative remains centered on an Obama juggernaut.

Lance is also correct about the media narrative on the other side of our political coin: the maverick McCain is on the move (and don't we all love him) and Huckabee may force his way onto the ticket. Actually, I think those clever Republicans will heed the growing drumbeat for Condi Rice as wingwoman to the war-monger, and thereby aim a potentially deadly arrow at Democratic demographics.

We Clinton backers can often feel lonely amidst the sugary hope and change - "So spurn me, I voted for Hillary," said Jim Wolcott last night - but I'm reminded time and again that there sure are a lot of us. Obama won more states and may have a delegate or two over Clinton, but our candidate won the popular vote and all the big Democratic states. Whereas his campaign has a boisterous and seemingly endless ceiling, her candidacy has a quiet but very high floor, populated by cornerstone Democratic voters - blue collar, women, Hispanics.

There's clearly no quit in either side. Obviously, Obama is a phenomenon - though I do believe he needs to call rewrite on that speech, it's getting time-worn and will soon turn like milk on the doorstep. He will continue on to the convention. And so will Clinton, who actually seems to benefit in strange way from her new outsider status. As Wolcott says, there's a natural reaction against famous people telling you who to vote for that helps the New York Senator. Oprah's last rally in California played to 5,000 empty seats. The celebrity portion of Decision '08 may well be past, unless the Goracle decides to tarnish his Nobel. Frankly, this wasn't the campaign Clinton planned, but it's the one she's got - running against the new national establishment of the Democratic Party, led by Howard Dean and John Kerry. The rules changed on Clinton, but she's adapting and fighting back. Take a step back, and you have to love this race.

Don't ask me where it goes or how either one gets to the needed delegate count before the convention. I'm thinking this goes right to Pennsylvania, which may make Ed Rendell the most popular Democrat on the planet come April.

Comments

[Tom K]

It's hard to lose momentum on a night you win both New York and California. And Missouri as well: not delegate-rich, but a traditional bellweather.

The analysis that Obama has the upper hand because of $$ seems silly to me. HRC will raise what she needs. If Obama doesn't quelch such talk -- which undermines the essence of what his followers aspire to see in his campaign -- he'll find himself on the the next train to Romneyville (a noted candidate retirement home).

[Linkmeister]

I caught a soundbite of Matt Lauer on the Today show asking Pat Buchanan (Pat Buchanan?!?) something like "doesn't Hillary have to do XXX to win now?"

I nearly threw the coffee carafe at the screen, but I contented myself with looking at the delegate counts and noticing that Senator Clinton has the lead by about 100 votes there.

[Tom W.]

Well, apparently BHO eked out MO over HRC by a couple thousand votes, though there may be a recount and it appears she got one more delegate than he.

I kind of agree on the big state analysis, the but the folks who run the DNC have a new philosophy of 50 states and Obama's firmly in the official DNC camp, on caucuses etc, where he cleaned up. I think she thought she was the establishment candidate last year, but learned differently...

[Stephen]

Did you mention the Oprah rally was going on just before the SuperBowl? You can spin spin spin all day for Clinton but that won't improve her judgement or make her a better person.

[Stephen]

Hey Tom K,

OBAMA WON MISSOURI! a typical bellweather state. As well as 12 other states.

[Tom W.]

No, you're quite right: I can't make Oprah a better person - or endow her with better judgement. She is what she is.

[Slappy]

How can you not say Clinton is in trouble. As stated above, Clinton won the big traditional Dem states but lost the smaller states in between NY and CA. (And even in CA Obama is getting a fair share of delegates.) Look at the states left on the primary calendar. If the trend continues, Obama can win the nomination. And guess who the Edwards delegates are going to side with at the convention? Obama will pick up most of those votes I believe. I base that on the MoveOn endorsement of Obama. When Edwards pulled out, Obama picked up almost all his votes winning 70% of the MoveOn vote. That and, thats right, momentum.

Im happy either way.

[Mike P]

Ugh. I can't wait for this to be over. To think I was looking forward to primary season...how wrong I was to be excited.

We have two good candidates but we're now at the point of tearing them both down just because we can't look at them without jaundiced eyes. Clinton people see crazed kool aid drinkers, Obama folks see a old machine. It's just kind of sad, really.

[Tom W.]

Slappy, whadda ya want from me? I said he's the frontrunner - you want a concession already? Way too soon - and I have to tell you, all my initial enthusiasm for Obama as number two choice is absolutely gone. I don't believe in the movement, "the one," the messianic vision, his judgement - anything. Except for his talent and clear ability in working with the Dean-DNC machine to make himself the frontrunner. Tactically brillant.

[Tom K]

When I went to bed, I thought HRC had MO clearly locked up. Guess I was wrong -- first time, I believe, that has ever happened!

I went in thinking MO would be a key indicator, so I guess it would be unfair to deny that Obama's winning it (even barely) should be considered significant. Still and all, if I win NY and CA on the same night, I'll get my sleep.

[Slappy]

True. I overstated the opinion above that Obama seemed to not be in the lead. Somehow I walked away from your post feeling that his advantage was false. My mistake.

[Tom K]

Hey, Tom --

Love the "BHO" reference. Did that come down from on high -- work the "Hussein" in?

I never cease to be amazed by how ugly like-minded people can get in their power struggles. (I don't mean to target this at you -- I'm speaking to the whole ugly mess).

But getting back to you: I did think, hearing you the other night explaining why Teddy K had endorsed HSO just to grab a final moment in the sun, that you were gonna bring up Chappaquiddick at any moment! Rather a contrast from the discussions we've had around Ol' Ted in the past.

[Tom W.]

TK - what are you talking about? HRC and BHO are short-hand all over the lefty internets, just as GWB is. There can't be a single person who reads this blog who is unaware of the guy's middle name. And what's HSO?

Which reminds me, Ted Kennedy's never been a "hero" of mine. Sure, I've admired his long legislative career and I was modestly pro-Kennedy early in '80 (when I was 18 and callow) but hero is a little strong.

[JoeySky18]

Sad....O'drama has less delegates (and THAT is what counts in the end according to your delegate himself!!) and now his camp is becoming queens of spin by counting total votes and total states...
O'drama expected to win CA....guess he didn't
O'drama expected to win MA...guess he didn't

So accept it gracefully

[bruce b.]

So what happened to "the inevitability train leaving the station"? It left the station, but then turned around and came back into the station? Or are there more than one "inevitability trains"? Perhaps an inevitability TRAIN and an inevitability bus? Or an inevitability scooter?

Or maybe it was an "inevitability commuter train", so it just keeps running back and forth along the same tracks?

I also loved TW's "enthusiasm" for Obama as VP, which lasted exactly ONE POSTING, if that. In fact, he might have changed his mind IN THE MIDDLE of the posting, setting a new record of some sort.

[Tom W.]

Hey Bruce, why live in the past? They had this little thing called Super Tuesday this week, so we've got to roll with it.

I'm sitll veyr enthusiastic about a Clinton-Obama ticket, btw.

[bruce b.]

TW says:

<< I'm still very enthusiastic about a Clinton-Obama ticket, btw. >>

This is fantastic. The position changes BETWEEN the posting and the comments.

This is why we all consider you such a trailblazer.

[Tom W.]

Wait, where did I say I wouldn't accept Obama as VP?

[Tom K]

Alright, Tom, if the BHO thing is commonly recognized by progressive as OK, I'm OK with it. I just hope I won't hear, if & when Republicans have occassion to use it, that's a subtle code for racists and xenophobes.

I recall you being pretty keen on Ted, and you saying things about him in our discussions that I thought supported my characterization. But if you are saying he was never a hero to you (as I think you are), or that he was, maybe, but that was a long time ago (alternate reading), I won't argue.

Certainly, your political positions were mistaken in the early 80's, as your profession of callowness effectively admits. So I give you credit for consistency: while your positions on Ted K or other specifics may have changed, your commitment to the underlying principle of error remains unshaken.

[Tom W.]

Geez, that's awfully nasty Tom.

[Tom K]

Aww, c'mon, don't get all sensitive on me. If you take offense, I withdraw my jest. Sincerely.

[Tom W.]

Well if it's a jest, I withdraw my commitment to the underlying principle of error.

[Tom K]

Of course, I'm not saying you aren't wrong or, heaven forbid, that you're right.

I'm just substituting a serious statement that you're wrong, now expressed as opinion, for the jest-y statement that you're wrong that I had expressed as fact.