In the New Hampshire in 1992, Bill Clinton ultimately did rather poorly, but at the time the evening news closed up shop for the night, it looked like a much better finish (though still second) than it was. Consequently, "the Comeback Kid."

A smaller dynamic appears to be in place here, but unless the impression that she won gets Hillary a significant uptick in donations or a boost in the primaries scheduled over the next week, it seems much less significant.

But what really may be far more interesting is the extent that the internet in general and blogs in particular are responsible for (1) getting genuine results out there and thus (2) tamping down the false impression of victory that Hillary might otherwise be riding.

super tuesday victory-ownage approved.

I love a little humor with my breakfast in the morning....HRC won on all counts last night and it's now time to unite, stop the spin and act like adults. It's time to go after the R's. If people want to stay home, clog up the convention, thats cool too, who cares, the R's are not happy with Mac they will stay home too. HRC will roll on with out you. As my dear Mom used to say one monkey does not make the show, it will go on.

Hooray! Just right of the middle of road.

It does not which these two wins, we are signing up for eight plus years of dragging a Democrat towards their own platform.

Woo-Hoo! Medio-cracy!

Here's how I'd spin: The experienced and reasonable candidate the whole country has known well for about a month is running hard and winning support everywhere against a Dem "incumbent" of some 16 years' duration who helped to enable George Bush's cruel trillion-dollar war -- forget about economic gains in the 90s -- and, as completely incredible as it sounds, four years later gave a boost to John McCain's dream to "Bomb bomb bomb Iran."

Again as I have posted here before the real story is that fact that the Democratic turnout far exceeds many previous national primary/caucus totals. I am not sure how much the moving up of the dates in the primary and caucus in several states have affected the overall turnout but one thing is clear and that is that most of the American people are sick and tired of the same old politics and mostly the complete detructive nature of Bush and Company. This is a tight race and neither side has a clear advantage at this point with the delegate totals being so close. But I do believe that if it does come down to the "Super" delegates that a question will have to be asked by the DNC representatives. It should go something like, "We need to ensure that whomever gets the nomination that the momentum which has been built up since 2005 leading to our huge victories in 2006 congressional races and the fact that many Congressmen and women from the Republican side have announced their future retirements, plus the fact that this national primary/caucus have shown that we can possibly take some of the Swing states as well as swing some of the Red states, who will be the best to continue this building of a coalition?" I am skeptical of using the Republican term of building a majority but I think what we really need is to see the value of progressive policies and fiscal conservatism married to one another therfore bringing reality based conclusions at the forefront of political decision making. I feel that when I talk to people down here in Texas that we are still divided on wedge issues but our concerns about the environment, addiction to oil, economy/jobs, Free-trade and health-care are much closer. To me these are the pressing issues and this is where America can rebuild itself.

Colonpowwow,

Disingenuous spin? Anyone paying attention knows that Clinton had more superdelegates going into Tuesday. Tell us something we don't know. She still lost Tuesday -- if delegates are the metric -- and she's probably going to lose over the next week in terms of popular vote (which her campaign is tacitly conceding). She's probably going to have to loan her campaign money, a la Romney, because her donations have rolled off the table.

The question now is, when Gore endorses Obama, how many uncommitted superdelegates is he able to take with him?

Thank you angry vet. Comment threads are sort of known for their nonsense, but claiming that HRC won "on all counts", and that Barry Obama is lying about it by arriving at a different calculation than the all-knowing CNN (THEY'VE never been wrong before, right?), is a little incredible.

I was going to have to call them on that, but you beat me to it. Kudos.

Obama's campaign is one of the most divisive I have seen despite his rhetoric. Claiming to appeal to all groups which analysis of the voting patterns simply show that he doesn't is simply dishonest.

I'm sure you fart in a church all the time colonpowwow. You're spinning like a top. It was a draw at worst for obama or could be construed a win. One week ago clinton was up by 20 points in many of the states that went obama's way, let alone he wasn't polling above 20 points six months ago. Now he is in a statistical dead heat? That would be considered a win by anyone's calculations, but I would call it a draw. To claim that she won, because of her institutional advantages in big states is silly, the same thing with claiming the super delegates. He's got the mo and we'll see where he is at on March 4, after he wraps up winning the states leading to March 4, as pretty much conceded by the clintons.

Send the clintons packing in 08.

Just a note on substance: Inevitably the H. Clinton supporters argue on the level of kids in high school supporting their candidate for homecoming queen. Is this really what we want the politics of the first serious female contender to be comprised of? The woman's running a dishonest campaign, propped up by her husband's political machine and major lobbying interests, and winning only in those places where a generation soon to pass away, or Latinos who culturally prefer strong-arm authoritarianism to egalitarian democracy, command significant segments of the vote. Republicans won't be able to run a racist campaign against blacks, since Bush has given them high ranks in his administration. But just watch what they can leverage against the candidate of the Latinos, and their illegal cousins - especially if they're running a McCain-Huckabee ticket, with its common touch, against haughty Hillary. Obama would beat them easily; Hillary, many Democrats I know are prepared to vote against, based on the low character she's demonstrated in her campaign.

Michael A
Hey Obama whiners if u think you have somehow won with deficit of about 100 delgates, that is what happens to ur brain when you inhale crack.
You guys are so shallow, all you can do is whine and foul mouth the Clintons. Shows where u come from.
Obama can't overcome delgates deficit from the remaining staes. So now he has started BLACKMAILING superdelgates! Typical THUG from Chicago.
BLACKS voting for a BLACK Obama are not racists and Bill and others not voting for him are racists!
Thanks to Latinos and Asians in CA, Hillary and Bill are going to win.

ColonPowPow wrote:

"Second - Alabama, Georgia, Utah, Idaho, South Carolina, Alaska, North Dakota, Kansas. These are the states that provided the huge margins for Obama. . . . That's where Obama's "strength" lies. In Hillary-hate country where no Democrat can win."

This cuts both ways, though. I'm a HRC upporter, and don't like this argument. If we're being intellectually honest this arg really plays into Obama supporters hands. Our big delegate wins yesterday were NY, Cal, Mass, and NJ. Can I honestly make the argument that Obama can't win those states in a GE? Not with a straight face.

Obama comes back with: "Of course I can win those states -- they're always Dem states. But HRC can't win the states I can. I put more in play."

So what do I do? I focus on the fact that we were winning in overall delegates before Tuesday and are still winning today; I argue that the delegates in Florida and Michigan must count -- millions of Dems can't be silenced; and I focus on the Mass and Cali wins as evidence that despite all the star power and fluff Obama pumped down folks throats, the true working-class Dems' voices were heard.

Those are your talking points ColonPowPow run with them ;)

CNN's current numbers are:

Hillary Clinton
Pledged: 618
Superdelegates: 193
Total: 811

Barack Obama
Pledged: 614
Superdelegates: 106
Total: 720

Now, I know delegates are all that matters. I have been saying this since IA when Clinton got one less than Obama, yet he still claimed a massive victory there. But that actually brings me to my point. Obama had his most lopsided wins (outside the south) in states that held caucuses, had low turnout, and/or are so overwhelmingly republican, that I believe his appeal to the mases is greatly overstated. Sure, he won 14 states yesterday. But some had turnouts as low as 2.5% of registered voters (ID). I am not impressed with caucus victories at all. By and large, caucuses are dominated by more educated people with money and time on their hands (i.e., Obama's base and a small % of the overall population). Colorado, which had the largest caucus turnout as a % of the population yesterday still only had about 13-14%.

This is decidedly anti-democratic compared to turnouts in the mid-30s to 40s in big states with true primaries like CA, NY, and MA. In most states where people could actually vote without having their neighbors inspecting their ballots, Clinton either won handily or the race was fairly close (such as MO and CT). Notable exceptions were IL, GA, and AL—but the variables at play that made those states exceptions are pretty obvious. I have to admit (and I am no shrinking violet) that when I hang around with my "professional" friends (most of whom are in the Obama demographic and support him), I am scared to speak up for fear of being ostracized as a racist. I can only imagine the pressure in a caucus of white, elite liberals to be "politically correct." It tells us nothing about how people would actually vote n a secret ballot.

I predict a long ugly campaign to come if Obama plans to spew this kind of rhetoric. I wish he would see the writing on the wall and drop out before he has so divided the party that victory in the fall is well-nigh impossible.

I truly feel posters like "CAINDP" are undercover Obama operatives. They come on here and spew racist crap to make HRC supporters look bad.

CAINDP, I know you're really an Obama supporter ... you don't have me fooled.

New York Times says Clinton 845 Obama 765

Jordan V wrote:
". . . and it's pretty clear at this point that in terms of pledged delegate, Obama will likely come out from yesterday by a few delegates."

Given that you say "for instance, basically no California delegate numbers are in", how is it pretty clear that Obama will come out from yesterday by a few delegates?

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
With almost all of the voting in, here’s the popular vote calculation for the Democrats:

Clinton 48.97% (6,967,302)
Obama 48.04% (6,835,447)

Hillary Clinton is winning among the Democratic base, people who will vote Democratic no matter who is nominated. But you can't win with just your base. To win the general election, you need to pull in Independents, part-time Democrats, and moderate, cross-over Republicans. And her negatives are just sky-high among them.

Furthermore, the Republicans are divided and dispirited right now. THEIR base, the Christian right, dislikes McCain, and they're likely to stay home on election day (and, even more likely, refuse to give money or to work hard on get-out-the-vote campaigns). But if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton, this will all change. The right-wing won't care who's on the Republican ticket, as long as they can work to defeat her. And this means that a low Republican turnout will become a huge Republican turnout, just because so many of them HATE Hillary Clinton. It will be a disaster for Democrats across the country, not just in the presidential race.

And finally, Barack Obama has the next generation of young Democrats all fired up. He is inspirational and seems to be determined to lead us into the future. If, instead, the Democrats timidly turn to the past, to the old-style Clinton political machine and 'politics as usual,' this will turn off a new generation of our potential leaders. Many of them will likely become discouraged and retreat into apathy, which would be a long-term disaster for the Democratic Party and for our country. Now is the time to take chances, now is the time to be bold and confident, now is the time to LEAD with Barack Obama.