Last evening was a flurry of confusion and drama, as North Carolina turned into a much less closer race than most pundits had predicted. The Clinton campaign had expressed optimism in the days leading up to the latest episode of Survivor: The Primaries. Not that they thought that they could win the Tar Heel State. But they thought they were competitive. They thought that the economic issue was working there. They thought that the gas tax issue was working there. And they thought that Senator Barack Obama had made some strategic mistakes in engaging on those issues rather than trying to solidify his base. Clearly those assumptions turned out to be incorrect as Clinton lost decisively in North Carolina, giving Obama not just a bump in the pledged delegates but also a bump in the popular vote. North Carolina turned out to be a miscalculation.

Indian, on the other hand, turned into more of a nailbiter than had been expected. Most pundits had predicted that Clinton had momentum, that most elusive and valuable of campaign assets, going into the primary and that should would pull out a victory. As it turned out, Clinton eked out one of the narrowest wins of the primary season in Indiana, beating Obama by 2 percentage points. In many ways the night slipped away from Clinton. Meanwhile, it turned into a far better evening for Obama than his campaign had hoped. They know think that he is clearly on track to lock up the pledged delegate lead by the time this circus comes to a screeching halt in June if not before then — they look at May 20 as the date when they can secure a majority of the pledged delegates.

As a practical matter the pundits will put these two states together, add up the popular vote, add up the pledged delegates, and Obama will most likely come out with a pretty substantial victory. That being the case, is there really any credible scenario by which Clinton can stay in this race at this point? To be honest, Clinton has not had much of a plausible scenario for some time, even after winning Pennsylvania, given the reality of the math. Even in the face of the Reverend Wright controversy and the “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” speech in San Francisco, Obama has still been winning the superdelegates war. This flies in the face of the theory of how the Clinton campaign hoped to pull this one off: either freeze superdelegates or start moving them back in her direction. This has not happendd. As a result of last evening, Clinton will get almost no advantage in the pledged delegates race whereas Obama will get a pretty decent split out of North Carolina. In other words, the way the math works this translates into a clear victory for Obama as the two candidates head toward the next round of primaries. Even though Clinton is heavily favored in West Virginia next week, it will not be that worthwhile a victory as a result of last evening.

Can we then expect to see the superdelegates carry on at the pace they have been coming out already, or is this pace going to quicken now? My sense is that there is a possibility that it could quicken. They are a fickle bunch, and they are always going to be a little bit cautious about things, but I think that if Obama can build on his new momentum then more superdelegates will go for him. Whereas a consolidation could happen fairly rapidly, watch for the real push to come at the end of the primaries.

What then is the scenario by which Clinton can still put it out at this point? Last evening was a big opportunity, particularly given her recent momentum and Obama’s struggles, and she still came up empty. What scenario is left for her? Well, it is the same scenario that she has had for some time: the “hanging by a thread” scenario. Holding on, staying in it long enough, so that if something were to happen to Obama that would make him look even more vulnerable as a general election candidate, she could pounce on the opportunity. Big victories in West Virginia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico would add to her number of popular votes and might cut enough into Obama’s lead so that she could argue that the Florida vote should to be counted. She would then have to continue to make that argument. It is a real long-shot, and there is no question that it got longer last night.

One of the ads highlights Clinton’s childhood roots in the Keystone State (I know what you’re thinking, but apparently the Senator is not only from the Empire State but also from Pennsylvania).  The ad has plenty of footage of baby Hillary traipsing around in a white cotton dress. How can it not be a success when it features baby videos!?

On a serious note, this may be part of the post-Mark Penn strategy, talking about softening Hillary’s image. But what’s remarkable about what’s going on in Pennsylvania is what Obama is doing. It’s unprecedented. $2 million. There are Democrats in that state who say  that NOBODY has ever spent that much. Not Rendell, not Casey, no one. No Democrat has spent that amount of money in one week. Obama is outspending Clinton at least three to one in Pennsylvanaia. I think you have to raise the question – is he trying to end it in Pennsylvania? All the pundits assume that Clinton has the advantage there, but Obama is pouring big bucks into the state, which is why she had to put out this new five ads.

It is certainly a very nice ad. Pennsylvania is one of the oldest states in the union and the folks there are very nostalgic. What she’s saying with that ad is, “I’m one of you.” There are two important considerations at play here, however. First, will the ad affect any undecided voters? Second, is it a waste of money. Then again, anything that even attempts to humanize Hillary is a good move.

Obama, meanwhile, unweiled a new ad that appears to be aimed at Pennsylvania women, a Clinton stronghold. The ad features all women, including his sister, wife, and…grandmother, the same woman he very publicly admitted uttered racial and ethnic stereotypes that, quote, “made him cringe.”

Exit polling has consistently shown that if Obama wants to win this nomination, if he wants to win in Pennsylvania, if he wants to win in any Democratic primary or caucus, he has to win women. That is Clinton’s advantage. So, by showing his half-sister, who’s half Indonesian, in the ad, by showing his grandmother, who he said he can no more disown even though she put forth racial epithets, the campaign is hoping that it will appeal to women voters in Pennsylvania. It’s interesting to note that Michelle Obama, who we haven’t seen much in the past couple of weeks, has been spending time in Pennsylvania, essentially making the case for her husband once again. Obama’s got to do better!

Next up, the new Clinton ad featuring the African-American mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter. The ad opens with the following line: “I know, you want to know why I’m supporting Hillary. Easy. She gets it, and she gets the job done.” OUCH! Nutter goes on to talk about how Clinton is best equipped to deal with issues like the economy and education. But what’s with the opening line? I think the Clinton campaign reached over way too far in that concept. Mayor Nutter should have just started off with, “Let me tell you why I’m supporting Hillary.” The ad is just filled with all kinds of wrong implications. And it looks like it’s some kind of attempt to get at Obama’s black vote, which is not going to work at all. This is the Mayor! This is a guy who’s involved in the nuts and bolts of government. And the ad goes on to talk about that, but he should have just stuck with that. This is clearly a defensive ad. He’s trying to hold – he isn’t trying to get votes. He’s trying to hold what she’s got (which isn’t much). The ad is trying to prevent a total landslide in Pennsylvania.

Finally, a new Obama ad is aggressively pursuing the youth vote in Pennsylvania. Here it is:

“Because with your power, it’s with your voice that we’re going to be able to make a difference. One voice can change the rules, and if it can change the rules, it can change the city. And if it can change the city, it can change the state. And if it change the state, it can change a nation. And if it can change a nation, it can change the world. Let’s go change the world.”

Obama is playing to his strength here, which is the youth vote. They helped him win in a place like Iowa. I think what’s fascinating here is that he’s been doing something with a small mention in one of the papers. He’s actually encouraging students to sign up 10 or 20 other students with a chance to get to play basketball with Obama. It’s registered thousands and thousands of people. And it’s just a different way that they run a viral campaign with young people. If he can turn out the youth vote in large numbers in Pennsylvania, it will be part of the larger story about Obama transforming politics. They are certainly trying to do it in a novel way again in Pennsylvania. And a lot of it is under the radar.

Here’s the problem with the ad though. It’s fine for the youth. But Pennsylvania is the oldest state in the union. Change for them means something very different. They are going to care about social security and Medicare. And I’m not sure if this ad does it for them. Old people aside (with all possible due respect), the ad has great appeal for the youth vote. But what it really is, is a winner ad. It’s aimed at the undecided voters who kind of want to pick a winner. And the ad makes the candidate look like a winner. It’s saying “get on the bandwagon, because this is the guy who’s going all the way.”

All in all, a couple of good ads from the Clinton and Obama campaigns, and a couple of duds. We’ll have to wait and see what impact, if any, they will have on April 22. What’s safe to say is that the battle for the Keystone State will only intensify over the next ten days.

“Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, well, ‘I guess, that‘s about far enough.’ That‘s not the way it works.  Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common.”

Never mind that Rocky lost in that movie to his opponent Apollo Creed.  It sure feels like the ref, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, wants to call the fight early, asking the undecided superdelegates to make a decision well before the late August convention.

Said Dean: “We also have these unpledged delegates that have been part of the rules for 25 years.  There‘s about 800 of them.  About 470 of them have voted, I‘d like the other 330 to say who they‘re for between now and the 1^st of July.”

Chairman Dean may believe he‘s doing what‘s best for the party, but they created these rules and this schedule, and by expediting the race he‘s also basically ensuring that Clinton will have no chance. She will almost certainly be down in both popular vote and delegates at the end of the primaries.  She will have to hope to make a momentum argument to the superdelegates and hope for an Obama slip up. Time is her greatest ally, and it sure seems like the leaders in the party don‘t want to give that to her.

It certainly seems that the leading Democrats are all using coded terms — “it‘s going to be OK, it‘s going to work itself out,” — which basically means Obama‘s going to win and we‘ll be able to get rid of Hillary Clinton?

I don’t really have a problem with what Dean is trying to do. However, I do think it’s really problematic when people like Pat Leahy suggests she’s got to get out now before all the votes have been cast and counted. When people like Dean, or Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi start to suggest, well, maybe July 1^st is a deadline, well, they can say whatever they want. It’s certainly interesting. I’d like to know. It gives us all a deadline to look forward to. But the fact is that it’s not binding. The superdelegates can come out and cast their votes either way. Dean can’t force them. And if they throw their support behind Obama, then Dean can’t force them to stick with it when they get to Denver in August.

Now, no one is taking the position officially that Clinton should get out now. You’ve got Leahy saying it, but you got no sort of so-called objective observers out there. You don’t have Obama saying it, you don’t have his campaign officially saying it. But isn’t there a wink and a nod here when Harry Reid and Howard Dean are saying, you know, we’ll be able to fix this pretty soon, so don’t worry?

My problem is not with the intellectually honest ones like Leahy who’s saying, for example, you know what, get out. That’s fine. That’s Leahy’s opinion, and people can judge him on that. My problem is with the Democratic Party establishment. I mean, here’s Nancy Pelosi, who backed off from a previous comment she made which certainly sounded anti-Clinton, and here’s what she’s saying today:

“I believe that the elections must run their course, that the people’s voices must be heard, and that the superdelegates voting their conscious, but paying attention to the will of the people. We’ll come to a resolution long before July.”

Perhaps there’s something I’m not getting when I look at the will of the people, but paying attention to the will of the people when you know that Hillary Clinton has almost no chance to come away with a popular vote victory — it’s possible, but not realistic — and that her only real hope is with the superdelegates. Isn’t this effectively Pelosi, and I add her now to the group I mentioned earlier with the wink and the nod, saying that Clinton is done?

When this ends in early June, Hillary Clinton’s best hope is to say, you know what, we’ve got momentum, and it’s going to take some time to convince people. And if everyone is saying let’s cut it off June 15^th or July 1^st or whatever the date is, sometime before the convention, then that is bad news for Clinton. At this time, there’s no way that time is anything but an ally to Hillary Clinton.

The signs are everywhere. Long lines at the polling places, huge crowds at campaign events, record contributions, and Republicans don’t like what they see. Here is perennial Presidential candidate and MSNBC Political Analyst Pat Buchanan’s analysis:  “Republicans are certainly facing an uphill battle. The President is terribly unpopular, the war is unpopular, the economy is headed into a recession, and the country believes we are moving in the wrong direction.”

Democratic rallies are turning out crowds in the tens of thousands, and it’s translating into votes. On Election Day in New Mexico, Democrats lined up and waited for as long as five hours to vote. In California, so many Democratic voters turned out in one county they ran short on ballots and had to keep the polls open late. It’s a scene repeated around the country this primary season. In state after state more Democrats showed up at the polls than Republicans, even at times when the Republican race was just as hotly contested.

In states where both parties had competitive primaries, there has been, in some cases, almost a 2:1 advantage in Democratic turnout to Republican turnout. And there’s a cash advantage. Democrats raised significantly more money in January than Republicans, and last week the Obama and Clinton campaigns announced that they raised a combined $90 million in February alone.

Despite the Democrats cash advantage, the fact that Obama and Clinton are still fighting for the nomination will work to McCain’s favor. It is going to be a very, very, very tough contest for the Democratic nomination, which might level the playing field when the fall comes.

And there is something else for McCain to consider: How much to embrace President Bush (who many voters blame for an unpopular war and a struggling economy)? Add to all of that something that’s hard to change: history. Only once since World War II has the same political party held on to the White House for three consecutive terms. McCain certainly has his work cut out for him!

“I’m hoping superdelegates [who] are uncommitted that have the economy as their major concern will gravitate to our group and use that power to gain additional attention.” [For the full article, please click here.]

Power? Additional attention?? So now superdelegates are like a special interest group vying for power? The superdelegate system already seemed crazy and undemocratic. But this just sounds scary…. This sounds insane. The idea that superdelegates are going to say: “We’re going to withhold judgment; we want to get the things that we want.” That’s not what the superdelegates are supposed to be doing.

In an interview with MSNBC’s Dan Abrams last Thursday, Congresswoman Kaptur went on to say that “we want to hear more and we actually want to converse more. So that we can hear ideas that would help our region [the industrial heartland] strengthen in the future rather than weaken, and hopefully the whole country.”

With all due respect to Congresswoman Kaptur, it is her job as a member of Congress to represent her district. Superdelegates are not supposed to play kingmakers with the democratic process. Speaking on the topic, DNC Chairman Howard Dean recently said: “They’re not a bunch of cigar-smoking people making deals in the backroom and they were not created so the party elite control the nomination.” Now, it sounds to me that Congresswoman Kaptur is talking about just such cigar-smoking back deals. Superdelegates are supposed to make sure the most electable person wins the nomination, not the person who best represents Ohio (or any other state for that matter).

The two states’ Congressional delegations are meeting in Washington D.C. to discuss the potential powder keg. Last night DNC Chair Howard Dean said that “rules are rules” but he “looks forward to hearing the new delegate selection plans from these states.” Why not hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan? Put the vote on April 22, the same day as Pennsylvania, it’s almost seven weeks away, it’s plenty of time.

Some might argue that there are no do-overs in Presidential politics, and the reason we’re in this mess is because these states broke the rules. They knew they were breaking them and they were warned of the consequences. So a do-over, especially in a tainted state like Michigan where they already had one Cuban-style election with one person on the ballot, is not an option. This is what I call the “party insider” or “Howard Dean” argument. But the whole breaking-the-rules stuff that everyone is focusing on is basically a defense of the idiocy of the Democratic Party.

Why can’t this be thought of as a courtroom verdict with an appeal? Yes, I know what you’ll say: There are no appeals in politics or Al Gore would be President. But this is the point about the Democratic Party. They can change the rules whenever they want. This is not set in stone. This is supposed to be about the best outcome for the Democratic Party. Now, while I do think that do-overs should be reserved for Double Dutch and Kickball and not Presidential elections, I certainly prefer this plan to splitting the delegates between Clinton and Obama.

We have to accept that Howard Dean was wrong. He blew it! He didn’t expect it to be this close, he didn’t think it was going to matter, and now you have a situation where, I think, a lot of people are going to question the democracy of the process. (Sorry Florida and Michigan, due to a technical violation the Democratic National Committee has decided that your votes do not count.) This should be a lesson to Party Chairs to do things differently and more democratically.

There is no question that this is one helluva mess. Yes, the rules were clear. But the rules were backwards. And that is why it is time for an appeal. And the appeal should be won by the people, not by Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Let’s get the voters back to the ballots. At the end of the day I think the good citizens of Florida and Michigan would want to have their voices heard.

It was no doubt a huge night for Clinton as she stopped Obama’s momentum (who had won 11 states in a row heading into last evening’s primaries). But the delegate count is important. Obama did not lose any delegates to Clinton in the overall count, and Clinton now has to find a way now to keep winning. But in the end, she’s gonna have to go to the so-called “superdelegates” and convince them that even if she is behind in elected delegates she has proven that she can win the key battleground states that are necessary for the fall. Obama, on the other hand, has to keep winning the elected delegates, stay ahead in that count, stay ahead in winning more states, stay ahead in the cumulative popular vote, and make the case that he deserves the nomination.

There certainly is a new game in this race. Obama could have put Clinton away last night if he had beaten her in Ohio and Texas. Clinton is back, and she will raise money and energize her base. Obama has a caucus in Wyoming on March 8 and a primary in Mississippi on March 11. If he can win those he can then go into Pennsylvania on April 22 with some renewed momentum. But there is no doubt listening to these candidates last evening that this will go all the way through Puerto Rico on June 7. The Democratic Party now has to make a decision on what to do with Michigan and Florida.

It looks like it’s all coming down to the superdelegates. Each of the candidates will need superdelegates to secure the nomination. Obama, however, will make the case that if he won more pledged delegates he should be handed the nomination.

There is something else at play here too. It looks like Clinton is going to link herself with John McCain, arguing that the two of them can be Commanders in Chief and that they should have that debate. Obama’s strategy will be to link Clinton with McCain, but also with President George Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney, and say “fine, I’m going to link you with McCain, but I’m also going to add Bush and Cheney; the four of you have a foreign policy and defense policy that is different from mine, so let’s have a debate.”

On this delegate question, Mark Penn, Chief Strategist for the Clinton Campaign, said some months ago “this is about voters, this is about delegates.” Can the Clinton Campaign be accused of changing the goal posts? Both Clinton and Obama agree that the delegates nominate the candidate. Can they get enough superdelegates to override the elected delegates? That’s how it will be perceived. If Clinton can make the case that she can win the big states and will be the stronger nominee, then maybe some of the superdelegates may listen. Or, what I think really is at play here, if this race continues for the next ninety days the Clinton Campaign is hoping for some outside event, some faux pas, some stumble that they can point to as evidence that Obama cannot possibly be the nominee even though he has more elected delegates. And vice versa. The Obama Campaign will make the case that the contest should keep going and then dare Clinton to deny them the nomination.

If this goes through Puerto Rico on June 7, then what happens with Florida and Michigan? There may be new primaries set in the middle of June, three months away from the election. And all the time McCain is out there uniting his party and raising money. The Democrats had hoped that they would have this three-month period to raise money, using it against McCain and defining him as an extension of Bush, rather than fighting each other. Stay tuned.

Last Friday, Limbaugh discussed the new plan with Bill O’Reilly on The O’Reilly Factor:

“I want our party to win. I want the Democrats to lose. They’re in the midst of tearing themselves apart right now. It is fascinating to watch, and it’s all gonna stop if Hillary loses. So, yes, I am asking people to cross over and, if they can stomach it, I know it’s a difficult thing to do to vote for a Clinton, but it will sustain this soap opera, and it’s something I think we need.”

The race is extremely close. The most recent polls have Clinton leading Obama in Ohio by an average of 7 percentage points, and in Texas Clinton and Obama are in a statistical dead heat. So Limbaugh’s plan could actually work to tip the election in either state. But, is it really gonna work? Are the folks on the right so scared of the Democratic candidates that they have to get involved and play games with the process?

Radio Talk Show Host Lars Larson claims that “it is not about being scared, it is not about playing games, and it is perfectly legal.” He’s right of course. Then again, he describes himself and Mr. Limbaugh as “reasonable Republicans who are reasonably conservative.”

Do the Democrats have something to worry about here?  There might be some Limbaugh followers out there that will go ahead and pull that lever for Clinton even though they are Republicans. But there will also be some folks on the far-right who are going to have a serious problem actually pulling the lever for Clinton. Either way, I can’t see it making a significant difference.

Here is what I find to be fundamentally problematic. Charlie Crist – the Governor of Florida – is now weighing in. He is suggesting that maybe the Democrats should hold another vote in Florida. Appearing on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer this past Sunday, Crist was asked if he as the Governor is ready to let the Democrats hold another primary, if necessary, to seat the delegates at the Convention in Denver. Governor Crist’s response:

“That would be fine with me. I think it is very important that those delegates are seated. And I am hopeful that the National Democratic Party and the Democratic National Committee comes to the conclusion that it’s the right thing to do. Every vote must count. Every vote should count.

Now, I don’t know if he believes that or not. But the idea that a Republican Governor is saying that “those Democrats, they ought to have another vote, maybe the process ought to last a little bit longer.” It sounds like maybe this isn’t just Limbaugh, but that there are more people on the right involved to keep Clinton in this as long as possible.

It should be clear that this is not illegal. I am not talking about the legality of it, but rather the morality of it. The right-wing (and notice that I do not use the word “Republicans” here) is deliberately causing mischief in what is not their party. This, again, should tell the Democrats that they need to change the process for nominating their candidate for the President of the United States.