No one wants to say it, but it’s true.

Two interesting articles came out of the Politico and Time Magazine today.

Time outlines 14 realities Hillary Clinton needs to face up to, here’s a taste:

1. She can’t win the nomination without overturning the will of the elected delegates, which will alienate many Democrats.

2. She can’t win the nomination without a bloody convention battle — after which, even if she won, history and many Democrats would cast her as a villain.

3. Catching up in the popular vote is not out of the question — but without re-votes in Florida and Michigan it will be almost as impossible as catching up in elected delegates.

4. Nancy Pelosi and other leading members of Congress don’t think she can win and want her to give up. Same with superdelegate-to-the-stars Donna Brazile.

5. Obama’s skilled, close-knit staff can do things like silently kill re-votes in Florida and Michigan and not pay a political price.

And Politico sheds light on the spell the Clinton campaign has cast on the national media over her chances to actually win the Democratic nomination.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else. People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

Ultimately, the questions raised by Politico make you think: had Obama been placed in the same circumstances of Hillary Clinton, wouldn’t the national media be saying, All right Barack, it’s over!

The reality is, someone needs to tap Hillary on the shoulder and have an awkward conversation with her. The math just doesn’t add up; her pathway to the nomination is one that disinfranchizes millions of voters and depends on party elite to overturn the popular will of the people. It won’t happen, and the longer we drag this process out, the more we hurt the inevitable Democratic nominee.

Despite Obama’s bad press this week, and he did have a bad week, the news today of Bill Richardson’s endorsement surely is an upset to the Clinton campaign.

And a report out of the Huffington Post: Obama has $30 million in the bank, compared with Hillary’s $3 million.

New Federal Election Commission reports show Obama raised at a clip of nearly $2 million a day in February, an open spigot of money that left him with $30 million in the bank for March.

Clinton had her best fundraising month as well, at $34.5 million. But counting her debts to vendors she ended with a net $3 million. And that’s not factoring the $5 million she lent her campaign and has not paid back.

I think the superdelegates and the popular will are behind Sen. Obama. Hillary needs to come back to Earth, face reality, and drop out. For the good of the party, and for the good of our nominee in the fall.

Today Iowa had it’s state Democratic convention, and according to NBC’s Chuck Todd:

The state’s 99 county Democratic parties held conventions today and the two campaigns were actively fighting to gain even more pledged delegates. At stake: the 14 pledged delegates John Edwards earned during the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses. Tonight, the Obama campaign claimed a gain of 7 pledged delegates, added to the 16 they earned on Jan. 3.

I averaged out the difference between the major media outlets’ estimates of the delegate lead (Washington Post, New York Times, AP, CNN, ABC, CBS & NBC). Right now Obama has a 123 delegate lead over Clinton, including among superdelegates. Since her Ohio win, she has lost 7 super delegates, while Obama netted 6 today alone. She also lost the Texas caucus, allowing Obama to net more delegates out of Texas.

Update: 
Looks like Obama will gain two more delegates after last night. According to Todd:

Last night, when I reported the net gain of 7 delegates for Obama out of yesterday’s 99 county Democratic conventions, it was based on 96% of conventions reporting. But there were two Cong. districts where Edwards was teetering on the edge of viability, the 1st and the 4th. Well, Edwards teetered the wrong way and Obama netted the delegates. So, here are the final results: … the overall delegate take for each candidate: 25 for Obama (that’s up from 16 during the Jan. 3 caucuses). 14 for Clinton (that’s down one from her 15 during Jan. 3). And 6 hung with Edwards, that’s down from 14 on Jan. 3.

Why Democrats should be Proud: Turnout & Enthusiasm
This year, turnout is unprecedented. Record numbers of people are involved in the Democratic primaries and turnout has consistently been two to three times that of the Republicans. In the swing state of Ohio, precincts saw ballot shortages and experienced extremely long lines. In Texas, the collective vote of both Obama and Clinton were about one million votes higher than John Kerry’s total in 2004. And in red states across America, Democratic turnout consistently trumps Republicans, creating some speculation that the state of Virginia might actually be in play.

With a resurgence of African Americans, youth and independent voters, as well as an unprecedented level of traditional Democrats turning out, it is inconceivable that the Dems could lose in 2008.

Why Democrats Should Worry: Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Clinton won last night in terms of momentum, but she will ultimately lose the night in delegates. Rhode Island and Vermont will cancel each other out, and Clinton will net approximately 12 delegates out of Ohio. Because the Texas popular vote was so close and Obama won the inner cities where the most delegates are apportioned, he will win just enough to tie Clinton in the primary portion of the ‘Texas Tw0-Step.’ BUT Clinton’s lead will not hold up: Friday or Saturday the Texas Democratic party will release caucus totals, where Obama is expected to do exceeding well. 67 delegates are awarded by the Texas caucus, about 1/3 of the Texas Democratic delegation. The result, a net for Obama.

This puts Clinton in a tough spot mathematically. She has snapped his momentum but she will still need to win about 70% of the remaining delegates to win the nom. Even if both candidates were to win every single delegate awarded by the 16 remaining states, neither would reach the magic number of 2025.

Hillary will be behind by between 130-160 delegates (depending on your source). Her only way to victory remains through a ’smoke-filled room.’ She can only win the nomination by carrying superdelegates, and if the superdelegates decide this nomination, it will be hell at the DNC in Dever. There WILL be a riot. And I honestly don’t see myself voting for Clinton if there is any appearence of a backroom deal with party elite.

But Hillary’s campaign will not see the mathematical reality. They never will. She has too big an ego and the media thinks this is too good of a horse race to continually remind her that it is near impossible to win the nom without shady dealings.

So what we are about to witness is 7 weeks of hell until Pennsylvania (Apr. 22). I predict that Clinton will spend the next 3 weeks running positive TV ads in the 6 major media markets in the state, and then toward week 4, go increasingly negative. By the time it is Apr. 22 in PA, she will not only have thrown the ‘kitchen sink’ at Obama, but the entire kitchen. She will attack him on all his vulnerabilities–experience, foreign policy credentials, leadership qualities– and ultimately, only to her peril, lose us the election in 2008. She won’t win the 70% necessary for the nom, and I pray to God she won’t be nominated by shady dealings. So I only see her campaign as seeking to bloody up our eventual nominee, and expend valuable financial resources fighting an expensive primary campaign.

Republicans, sit back and enjoy. Hillary Clinton may be your best friend.

It fascinates me that we have “superdelegates” in the Democratic party. We are a party of the average person, the common folk, and yet we pick our presidential nominee based on 2/3 popular vote and 1/3 political elitism.

As a Democrat, I am ashamed that my party awards voting privilege to the party elite. Not only does it drown out the voice of popular will, but it alienates independent voters and promotes a system of special favors in exchange for political support.

We don’t want an American oligarchy. We are the Democratic party and we stand for more than that: we represent the Iowa farmer who is struggling to get his farm subsidy, the poor New York City mother who is dependent on government services to vaccinate her child, the elderly couple who are fighting against risky Social Security privatization, and the bright, young East St. Louis high school student who has the grades, has the drive but doesn’t have the money to go to college. The downtrodden–and it is such a shame that we have a system of “superdelegates” to suppress the voices of our base, our core constituencies.

But I digress.

Of late the candidate who has been benefiting most form the superdelegate phenomena is Sen. Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton currently leads Sen. Obama in the superdelegate count 239-174, but a trend has started. In recent days 13 superdelegates have moved to Obama, compared with 1 for Sen. Clinton. That includes two who have switched from Clinton to Obama, check it out below.

Also, AP has a story about just this if you’re interested. The massive exodus of superdelegates from the Clinton camp since their losing streak.

According to Democratic Convention Watch:

Endorsed Sen. Clinton 2/20/08 - today:
DNC Belinda Biofore (WV)

Endorsed Sen. Obama 2/20/08 - today:
DNC John Rednour (IL) From Clinton to Obama
DNC Donald Norcross (NJ)
DNC Dana Redd (NJ) From Clinton to Obama
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (TX)
Rep. Ron Kind (WI)
Rep. Kathy Castor (FL)
DNC Jason Rae (WI)
DNC Margaret Xifaras (MA)
Rep. Steve Kagen (WI)
DNC Sonni Nardi (OH)
Sen. Russ Feingold (WI)
DNC Connie Borde (DA)
DNC Leon Lynch (PA)

Sorry I haven’t blogged in a long time. I’ve been working on the Obama campaign here in Delaware and in South Carolina and haven’t had the opportunity to return to my blog.

Here were some of last nights great results:

Barack Obama maintained his delegate lead over Senator Clinton by picking up smaller states by significant margins. He also won Illinois in a lopsided victory, effectively canceling out Clinton’s win in New York (which was only a 57-40 win compared with almost-delegate equal Illinois, 33-65).

Obama’s strategy is obviously to target smaller caucus states. By winning in places where enthusiasm and ground organization is a measure of success, Barack Obama has put together a coalition of winning demographics that can offset the Republicans next November.

He also leads Sen. Clinton in states won. Last night he won 13-9.

Outstanding performance by someone who was written off not even two months ago.

Wow, did Hillary get angry with Obama and Edwards. It was fairly clear early on that she was upset over the Iowa result, but I really never expected her to lash out on the definition of change like that. Yeesh.

Anyway, here are my comments throughout the debate:

9:15: Gibson continually interrupts Obama as he is discussing how our shift in attention from Pakistan to Iraq has lead to turmoil in the region.
9:24: Richardson blah blah blah on nuclear terrorism, my mind wanders when he talks.
9:32: The issue is health care, why is Hillary attacking Obama on his vote to fund troops in Iraq?
9:34: Edwards: “forces of the status quo” Ouch for Hillary, just ouch.
9:37: Clinton gets pissed at Edwards, unbelievable. She’s talking about how her 35 years in service have “worked toward change.” I don’t think she understands the concept.
9:39: Richardson says “what’s wrong with experience?” Oh Bill, experience is your life. Maybe that’s why you’re polling at 5%.
9:41: Question over change, Edwards now struggling to redeem himself from looking too over the top. Or perhaps a brilliant strategy? I don’t know.
9:50: Clinton “that hurts my feelings.” Oh my gosh, she shows her human side! What’s with Obama’s “you’re likable enough” moment?
9:52: Clinton: “In 2000 we elected a president we wanted to have a beer with.” Wow, she just compared the front runner with Bush, that can’t be good. That whole image of change was just compared to Bush, I think that can back fire.
10:00: Clinton: “I am the agent of change” What??? No you’re not, if establishment had a name, she’d be named Hillary.
10:07: Edwards on the Patients Bill of Rights… nice stump speech incorporation.
10:09: Same with Obama, more stump speech.
10:15: Hillary’s “reality check” moment.
10:16: Obama should address Hillary’s accusation about his NH co-chair being a lobbyist. That’s probably a distortion of facts.
10:17: STOP BEING NOSTALGIC ABOUT THE CLINTON YEARS, we want to look to the future, not the past!
10:21: “Words inspire.” I love it Obama. “Words are power”.
10:29: Gibson asks question to Edwards, Hillary interrupts to talk about tax cuts.
10:32: Obama: “We have to get back to a bottom up economic growth system for middle class families.”
10:33: Richardson goes off topic, talks about education and art??
10:35: Hillary attacks Republicans. Tries to be above the fray when she’s been negative all night. Doesn’t answer Gibson’s question about your “worst debate moment which you’d want to take back.” I think everyone knows hers is the illegal immigrant licenses question. I wonder why she so humorously decided not to respond. Has she clarified her position?
10:37: Obama talks about the Republicans and ending their policies of fear. Good job, stay about the fray. Nice end.

Bill Richardson: Didn’t really stand out. Whenever I listen to him my mind wanders. He lacks enthusiasm, he lacks some energy and he’s too centric on his resume. He personifies the typical “experience” candidate which unfortunately, is not what were looking for right now.

John Edwards: Good decision sticking with Obama and attacking Clinton, though I thought in attacking Hillary he risked a backlash against himself. Overall, good night for John.

Barack Obama: I think he won tonight’s debate. He didn’t make any policy errors, he remained calm and had a few good lines. He didn’t gravitate to the extreme of being docile (like Richardson) or being over the top (like Edwards). He acted, well, presidential.

Hillary Clinton: She looked pissed. She had a moment which is going to be aired again and again and again. Voters will wonder whether she can handle stress under fire. She did have a few good moments where she showed her “human” side, but overall I don’t think those will be the clips that make the morning news.

Side note here: Just moments after the debate, Hillary Clinton’s people posted two videos that seemingly contradict one another on Obama’s single payer health system. I find it funny that Clinton vowed not to go negative in New Hampshire but they’re willing to try to dig up muck.

Hillary’s “Moment”:

According to Political Wire, here are what the pundits have said about tonight’s debate:

Chuck Todd: “The focus on this debate for so many in New Hampshire and the media was twofold — how would Obama handle being the frontrunner and how would Clinton handle be the challenger. Well, thanks to a subdued format, Obama seemed to pass his test with flying colors… I’m not sure David Axelrod could have scripted this debate better if he did it himself.”

Rick Klein: “Edwards may have turned in the strongest pure performance. But that will be overshadowed by a couple of stand-out Clinton moments. She let it all out tonight — the entire book on Obama. But she opened the book on herself with those flashes of anger. New Hampshire voters don’t like candidates who feel entitled to nominations — they get to decide, things are not foreordained and candidates are not inevitable. Sen. Clinton had some moments tonight she’ll want to take back.”

Chris Cilliza: “The challenge Clinton faced in tonight’s debate — and the challenge she faces in the New Hampshire primary more broadly — is that Edwards clearly believes his path to the nomination requires bouncing out Clinton to create a one on one race with Obama over who is the true change agent in the field.”

Marc Ambinder: “Iowa victor Obama had a target on his back, but he’s acquired a Kevlar vest as a front runner. Like Clinton tonight, he was unflappable.”

And if the politicos can’t convince you that Obama won last night than maybe Frank Lutz and his focus group can give us some insight:

Obama’s campaign has been on the upturn since his announcement last February, but can he win Iowa?

Rival John Edwards never stopped campaigning in the state after his loss in 2004. Edwards had established himself in Iowa, and immediately began campaigning in every rural town in the state.

Upon Clinton’s announcement, early polls indicated she was the national front-runner. Over the summer the media painted her as the “inevitable” nominee but months later she lost significant support in early states. Voters soon tuned in and ultimately the value of her name recognition was put up against the arguments of “change vs. experience” and “electability” (and she’s lost a lot of support.)

For Obama, it’s been an uphill fight against an established campaign at the grassroots level and a nationally recognized former first lady. Ask an Obama staffer and they’ll tell you that they’re “building a plane in mid flight”- a reference to building a campaign while running at the same time.

I am not in a position to predict who will win Thursday night’s caucuses. It’s just too close. But I can give you the numbers that I’m looking at that show both discouraging and encouraging news for Obama.

Pollster.com reveals that Obama’s support within the state is declining; he peaked a week ago against his Democratic rivals and has lost a few percentage points. RCP and Pollster reveal the field’s average at Clinton 29.3%, Obama 25.9% and Edwards 25.2%.

CNN reported an American Research Group (ARG) poll released Dec. 25, 2007 that revealed Obama slipping significantly among male voters.

According to the poll, Obama has lost some ground among male voters in Iowa: Last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.

However, the same ARG poll has been widely criticized for straying away from the vast majority of polls in Iowa. ARG reported that 34% of Iowa caucus-goers support Clinton, compared with only 20% for Edwards and 19% for Obama; most polls show a statistical tie, and ARG was way off.

Still, if their finding for the male demographic is correct, perhaps that, coupled with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto could explain a small boost in Hillaryland. Clinton has revived her “experience” rhetoric in the wake of the Pakistan crisis, and since has painted the junior senator as inexperienced, a “roll of the dice” as Bill said.

But there are encouraging signs coming out of the Obama camp.

Strategically, the campaign is spending more in Iowa advertising than any other candidate, outspending Senator Clinton by $2 million. Edwards, who has been criticized for allowing an independent PAC to spend $750,000 in advertising for him, is no where near the spending level of his rivals. Reports the International Herald Tribune:

The Democrats are spending by far the most on television advertising here, and smashing records in the process. Senator Barack Obama has spent the most, at $8.3 million, Clinton has spent $6.5 million and Edwards has spent $2.7 million, according to an analysis by CMAG, a firm that tracks political advertising spending.

Obama is spending more than Clinton in the last throws of the Iowa campaign. Interesting note: Edwards is spending only $2 million–perhaps reflective of his reliance on grassroots infrastructure instead of a sudden media blitz.

Money doesn’t buy votes, but visibility certainly gives you the edge.

In one of her biggest expenditures of the campaign here, advisers said Thursday, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is spending more than $20,000 to broadcast a two-minute taped message during every 6 p.m. newscast in Iowa on Wednesday, the eve of the caucuses, which will be seen by an estimated 515,510 adults in the state.

Not to be outdone, the Obama campaign purchased the next two minutes of advertising space. Initially, they wanted to lay the trump card on Clinton, attempting to buy a 5 minute segment directly following Clinton’s ad that would be synced live. Complications in coordination and federal election laws however made that impossible.

One measure of a candidate’s potential success is their turn out to events. The Obama Campaign posted the following graph to demonstrate overwhelming support:

It would be difficult to suggest that Obama does not have rock star status. His popularity among young people has scared the Clinton Campaign into discouraging young voters from turning out on caucus day. Young people, 14% of whom turned out in 2004, are a major demographic for Obama for America (often underrepresented in the polls). They’re just gravy to his support across the state.

And many polls reflect this graph put out by Obama for America, a demonstration of Sen. Obama’s electability:

Yesterday the Edwards Campaign had great resaon to rejoice. Three new polls show John Edwards with the big mo, but can he sustain it until Thursday? Check out these numbers:

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Among Iowa caucas-goers
John Edwards 24%
Hillary Clinton 23%
Barack Obama 22%
MoE +/- 5

Reuters/C-Span/Zogby, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers*
John Edwards 30.4%
Barack Obama 24.9%
Hillary Clinton 12.9%

MSNBC, Dec. 30, 2007
Second choice among Iowa caucus-goers
John Edwards 36%
Barack Obama 26%
Hillary Clinton 26%

American Research Group, Dec. 30, 2007
Among New Hampshire Voters
Hillary Clinton 31%
Barack Obama 27%
John Edwards 21%

Same poll, among independent voters:
Edwards 36%
Obama 23%

In the last two weeks:
Clinton - 7%
Obama + 3%
Edwards + 6%

*In Iowa all candidates must obtain a 15% threshold after the first round of caucusing to be considered “viable.” Candidates without 15% support in their precinct are eliminated, and their supporters must either choose another candidate or go home.

In short, every Iowa poll shows a statistical dead heat, BUT these three out today show Edwards in first place in IA, first among second choice candidates, and gaining among Democrats and Independents in New Hampshire.

What the Edwards campaign is looking to do is translate a victory in Iowa into momentum going into New Hampshire. Edwards has spent the better part of two years campaigning in Iowa, and so his grassroots ground infrastructure is superior. He is well known around the state, and has solidified his image in the rural Western counties of Iowa.

Both the Obama and the Clinton campaigns would prefer an Edwards victory should their respective candidate not place. Edwards lacks the financial support to run a national campaign, and an Iowa victory would make him completely dependent on momentum. Clinton is fairly secure in Edwards winning because after Iowa, he has little established ground infrastructure. Despite recent gains in New Hampshire most polls still show him dragging. A victory in Iowa would mean that he’d have to make up a 10% gap between him and Obama/Clinton in NH, and 20-25% nationally. Another reality is that his message wouldn’t likely appeal to average NH voters; his entire pitch to rural farmers has been to battle evil lobbyists and corporate greed that are consuming our interests in Washington, something that honestly wouldn’t resonate with the many urban and suburban Democrats in New Hampshire who may have jobs in large corporations. Despite one poll that shows a significant “surge” for Edwards in New Hampshire, there are 4 other polls that all show him lagging 12% (RCP). In South Carolina, he has up to a 22% deficit based off of 5 different polls.

My prediction is that if Edwards wins Iowa, it’s a victory for the Clinton campaign. His support among rural townships gives him a huge edge in Iowa’s caucus, because western counties are disproportionately represented in the delegate selection process. Given the choice between Edwards winning in Iowa and Clinton, the Obama campaign would prefer Edwards, because at least that would fend off Hillary’s aura of inevitability.

According to OpenSecrets, Edwards has raised $30m and spent $17m, compared with Clinton ($91m raised, $51m spent) and Obama ($80m raised, $44m spent).

These poll numbers out today demonstrate to me that Edwards has momentum, but once again I’d like to take these numbers with a grain of salt. They’re polling an extremely close race, and none of this matters other than to show that Edwards is up, Clinton is down, and Obama is fairing well. And it’s still 3 days until Iowa, could it be possible that Edwards is peaking too early?

FOX News, Dec. 20, 2007
Clinton 49%
Obama 20%

NBC News, Dec. 19, 2007
Clinton 45%
Obama 23%