Yeah, don't worry. Once Ohio voters see her and Obama up close, they'll figure out who to vote for.

I live in Ohio. Obama's just now getting his troops on the ground here. It will be a dogfight, and that's good. I like the idea of a last stand for Hillary, and Obama proving that he can unseat her in even the most unfavorable (for him) of places. I will say that from narrow perspective in the heart of working class small town Ohio, there is much more enthusiasm for Obama, more ingrained support for Clinton. We'll see if three weeks is enough time for that enthusiasm to turn into votes.

Isn't it a bit sexist to refer to Clinton as Hillary when all of the other posts speak of Obama or McCain?

No surprise in that poll for this former Ohioan. It's a tough state to figure, Strickland has the machine primed for HRC, and it is hard to acurately model turnouts there in general.

Obama's got a LOT of work to do in order to make it close. Lucky for him and his campaign, he has the time and resources to try and do just that.

Game on.

**It isn't sexist to refer to Hillary by her first name and Obama and Edwards by their second. People only refer to her as Hillary because there are two Clintons, but only one Obama and one Edwards. To make matters worse, there are damn near two Clintons running in this race at the same time, so I usually differentiate between them like that. When I'm talking about Hillary I say Hillary, when I'm talking about Bill I say Bill, when I'm talking about the campaign I usually say the Clinton campaign because it is basically a two-for-one special.

Totally off topic, but what the hell is going on with New Mexico? It's been over a week now and they still haven't finalized the results. This is not reflecting well on Bill Richardson....

Hm, for my money a seventeen point lead with three weeks to go would not make me sleap easily if I were a Clinton campaigner. He has proven awfully adept at closing wide leads, especially with that much time to do it. Mind you, I am not predicting an Obama win, but I think that this could change by election day.

TX has 228 delegates to OH's 141. While OH is relevant, I'd say that TX is the state to watch. Happily for Obama, most of the delegates are apportioned by caucus, but he's behind in the polls there too.

National Review Online says early exits show McCain and Huckabee close in Virginia.

Yep this is not the best news for Hillary. What every state so far has shown is The more time Hillary spends in a state the more votes she loses and the more time Obama spends in a state the more votes he gains. Hillary needs to replicate Obama's smaller state 2-1 vote victory ratio in Ohio and Texas for her to keep pace with him.

NM is done counting everything except provisional ballots. Both sides have lawyers there for those and last I heard they were promising to meet a 2/15 deadline.

New Mexico Democratic Party is in the process of validating and then counting Provisional Ballots. Other ballots were completed last week and show Clinton with about 1,100 vote lead out of about 135,000 cast. Party did not fund for enough ballots and had only one polling location for State's 4th largest city. There were some other problems too. New Mexico is not always so "New".

I have recorded this link for the time that the Clinton campaign starts spinning her narrow win or narrow loss as a true comeback underdog story.

OK, my post got garbled, I swear I had the tags right.

HRC's website front page is labeled:

HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

It says "Hillary" over and over and the word Clinton appears only once that I could see, in tiny print at the bottom of the page.

But Hillary definitely seems to be starting from a good position. Now she just has to maintain or even extend it.

Has Hillary extended her lead in any state from three weeks out? The only one that I can think of is FL. She's improved from behind in a few, but I think Obama has narrowed her lead in every state that he has campaigned in leading up to the primary.

THE BILL CLINTON EFFECT TRUMPS THE REVERSE BRADLEY EFFECT

Flyonthewall. You mentioned "the Reverse Bradley/Wilder Effect" and that Blacks are voting for racial solidarity. Perhaps you might want to rename it the President Bill Clinton Effect. For three weeks after Iowa, The Clintons and their surrogates waged a very subtle racial attack on Obama.

During this time they made patronizing comments about him being merely a "good speaker," trivializing his accomplishments, minimizing the importance of his early judgment and risk-taking in opposing the war in Iraq, and using surrogates to demonize his morality. Both feminists and African Americans have often faced that in the workplace - particularly in the past. Here the Clintons were, these bastions of civil rights, putting a demonstration of it on display on tv. Who wants to see that comiing from someone who you previously saw as your advocate.

They also inadvertently did the same to MLK, an icon in the Black community, on the eve of his holiday. Those of us who may have doubted their intentions to marginalize Obama as a Black candidate, had no doubt after The Jesse Jackson comment. Frequently in the workplace bias is unintentional. What the Clintons did was intentional and not because they are racists, but because we were disposable and they thought thaat all they had to do was make a "sincere" mea culpa and we would be back in their corner.

Might I suggest that Blacks showed solidarity not just for Obama, but against the Clintons and their craven disregard for one of their most loyal constituents. They also almost caused a divide in the democratic party by making her becoming more important than the party.

After decades of the Republicans telling Blacks that the Democrats took us for granted, Bill Clinton decided to give us a demonstration. Fortunately, most Americans in the democratic party have demonstrated that they rejected racial politics and I for one am grateful.

Prior to the launch of this retro strategy, most African Americans were debating about the three candidates and supporting all three. I was for Edwards, Obama was my second choice. Had the Clintons not made the move to make him a "Black Candidate", I think she would have kept at least 25-40% of African American voters.

Those Blacks that say that they ar voting for Clinton are not lying. Like Hispanics, most Blacks worshiped the Clintons prior to the events of January and and were extremely loyal. Some struggled to come to terms with their actions and tried to remain loyal. Unfortunately, time is working against Clinton with those who are still loyal. Last week my Mom, was angry at me for the things I said about the Clintons. this week, she is leaning toward Obama. This is going on around the country. The distaste of what they did is is heart wrenching for some of us and ultimately makes many of those last supporters who are thinking through what they did, change their mind at the last minute.

How the public can not see that this behavior rom the Clintons might have some impact on Black voting patterns amazes me. Throughout three decades Blacks have never previously selected a candidate based on race. Not Jackson, Sharpton, Mosely-Braun, nor Chisolm. So, I would like to suggest we are like the female voter. Some vote out of solidarity, but most normally do not.

Maybe some of you might be saying that we should get over it. I would just like to remind you that The President Bill Clinton Effect happened just happened three short weeks ago. After years of supporting them through all the scandals, it might take a while for us to get over what some of us see as an ultimate political betrayal. So yes, we are showing solidarity against Clinton.

Tracey

Nothing takes peoples attention away from where things stand tonight, like a good dose of Clinton Chicken counting, not only long before they have been hatched, but have even yet been laid.

By the way: Guess what Hillery, the self proclaimed War Princess who slays all Republicans, did today.

Did she show up to fight the Republican dragons on their FISA unwarranted wiretap invasions of privacy. No the Warrior Princess did not. Why you ask. It was because she spend the day in a studio doing remote TV interviews for local stations in Ohio and Texas.

Yes indeed; Warrior Princess Hillary will fight alright, but it will not be to defend your freedoms. She does not give a rat's arse about your lives.

Sorry for typos. :)