Democrat Details

After her Pennsylvania victory, HRC said, "The tide is turning!" Indeed, it did turn. Through her effective campaigning, she managed to whittle a 20 point lead down to 10. Imagine what she could do with what is left of the economy, especially if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi add their efforts.

As we head out of PA toward IN and NC, consider this:

If you include FL and MI (perhaps they can't vote at the convention but they can vote in November!), Clinton leads in the popular vote, though she is down in delegates. (Actually, Larry Sabato at the University of Virginia explains how this claim is highly dubious. For example, it includes Michigan where Obama's name was not on the ballot and it excludes caucus states most of which were Obama victories.) This brings back memories of 2000 when Gore won the popular vote for the Democrats but lost in the Electoral College. If this trend continues, it could provide a conscientious loophole for superdelegates to back her if Obama continues to raise electability concerns. Of course, Hillary has her own electability concerns.

Obama outspent her 3:1, and yet could not close the gap. Hmmm.


Obama has won in states that Republicans will win, but Clinton has won the large swing states with lots of Electoral College votes.

Gail Collins in today's NYT ("Hillary's Smackdown") writes:

The clamor for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the presidential race has reached new levels of intensity since the Pennsylvania primary. Of all the things Hillary has done, Obama supporters find her tendency to win large elections in swing states as by far the most irritating. If she beats him in Indiana, they’ll be surrounding her house with torches.

As of April 1, the Obama campaign had $42.5 million in the bank. The Clinton campaign had only $9.3 million but they also had more debt than cash on hand.

They are both such a mess.

But why read me when you can read Karl Rove?

His inspiring rhetoric is a potent tool for energizing college students and previously uninvolved African-American voters. But his appeals are based on two aspirational pledges he is increasingly less credible in making.

Mr. Obama's call for postpartisanship looks unconvincing, when he is unable to point to a single important instance in his Senate career when he demonstrated bipartisanship. And his repeated calls to remember Dr. Martin Luther King's "fierce urgency of now" in tackling big issues falls flat as voters discover that he has not provided leadership on any major legislative battle.

Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.

Read the whole thing: "Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?" Karl Rove is speaking to you! Why are you not listening? And go to Robert Novak for better fuller details than I can give here.