×
The New York Times "reports":
“She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out,” said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. “The campaign is starting to come to terms with that.” Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.That's less reporting the candid views of Clinton's endorsers and campaign advisers than it is transmitting their preferences on how the expectations should be arranged. The new idea is that Barack Obama can win every primary from here until March, and it doesn't matter one whit so long as Hillary wins the primaries in which she's heavily favored. That, of course, is the test, her ability to win the states that she's supposed to win as of this week, rather than the states she was spposed to win as of two months ago (which was, as I remember, all of them). Glad Mark Penn was willing to share that with us shrouded in candid anonymity. On the other hand, this is more interesting:
Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.That could matter. I'm increasingly interested in the attitudes of red state superdelegates -- I'm hearing a lot of unanimity that red state Democrats would prefer Obama, as he does less to turn out Republicans and more to turn out African-Americans and the young. Till now, that judgment might have been secondary to not pissing off the inevitable nominee. But if Clinton looks vulnerable, it's hard for me to imagine those pols and party dignitaries will vote against their perceived political interest.
