Late breaking polls have Obama leading in CA and nationally. I think the punditry picks are going to prove surprisingly wrong. I note already that the punditry poll picked Utah for Clinton. Deseret news has Obama by 20 plus. And Zogby, that has been pretty good in the primary season, has Obama up by six pts. in CA, and ahead nationally, amazingly even in New Jersey. Cook Political reports has an Obama lead nationally of six pts. NY Times/ CBS has it dead even. So clearly the momentum is with Obama. I think he will score a win in most of the states tomorrow. Of course the delegate count will not be decisive and the race is likely to go on for some time.

It might be noteworthy that the bumper sticker poll has shifted dramatically to Obama.

Bumper Sticker Momentum The sale of political merchandise on Cafe Press shows another indication of Sen. Barack Obama's momentum in the Democratic presidential race:

FYI After being nearly tied two weeks ago in weekly sales (Obama at 28%, Hillary at 26%), as of last week, Obama has surged to account for 48% of all candidate weekly sales, while Clinton is down to 18%. In total for December, Clinton sold 18% more products than Obama, but in January, Obama's sales are now nearly double those of his chief rival.

Too right Kari....I really feel left out of the process, so far. Except for expounding on various blogs, which is more vanity than people-swaying.

I do have thoughts about Jeff's thoughts, too. It is true that elections are decided more about what people hope that what they know. But I also think that voters today are more eager to KNOW how hope and promises are mapped out in the candidates' platforms. And that info is easier than any other time in history to research. Any candidate who does not make their goals clear and detailed on their websites will lose credibility. There are sites where the candidates' proposed policies are lined up side by side for comparison, but really you must go to their individual campaign websites and read deep and read between the lines. We've been fooled before and voter apathy is not in play this election.

Granted blueoregon readers are more aware, astute and involved than many citizens.

On the other hand if there is one candidate who has the charisma, and the fine ability to inspire and involve voters to a hopeful vote through the power of the spoken word....we should not underestimate that character trait. After all being President of the US is the biggest sales job in the world. Someone with this gift of persuasion might just be able to lift congress out of the swamp, and convince them to vote the will of the majority, for the overall common good.

Interesting blog at huffpo re Obama's rewriting rules of conventional campaigning:

Well if that didn't link...here's the site:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/obama-rewriting-rules-of-_b_84605.html

New York Time's Paul Krugman points out the difference between Barack's and Hillary's health care plans, and Barack's is worse. Both should take a look at the approach taken by the Archemedes Movement, and talk with John Kitzhaber. Barack, especially, should drop the "Harry and Louise" approach to attacking Hillary's health care plan, since his is worse.

I agree that Krugman has successfully pointed out many holes in not only Barack's health care proposal, but how he is marketing it. Krugman also has questioned his approach to social security reform, as well as the entire fact of him being a progressive at all.

It would be weird if Hillary turned out to be more progressive, especially with regards to domestic policy, than Obama.

On the other hand, if Obama is truly able to lead us into a new Democratic era, away from all of these pissant Washington insider consultants who have been watering down the progressive wing of the party for decades... well, it'll be a miracle, given that his rhetoric hasn't shown much sign of actually being more progressive (aside from "hope" perhaps being a progressive attribute).

I heard that the entire Kennedy family has gone for Obama, including Maria Shriver, Schwarzennegger's wife. Arnold himself has gone for McCain.

And Oprah has vowed to campaign for Hillary, if she wins the primary.

So, things are getting interesting.

Keep your eye on California. Zogby's daily poll yesterday had Barack up double digits on Hillary. Should be very interesting.

I understood that the polling factors in those who have already voted, in CA and elsewhere. What I don't get, is how do they poll people, especially young people with no land lines.

Krugman's clout with voters is likely pretty negligible.He makes for conversation in forums like this perhaps. I think Hillary shot herself in the foot yesterday when she acknowledged that she would garnish worker wages to impose the insurance mandate. Obama says he won't do that, but he will fine parents who don't insure their children under his plan. Garnishing worker wages to impose a universal mandate will not get broad support.

Great survey of the issues, Jeff. We are definitely seeing votes based on feeling rather than substance. I mean, how is it that McCain is on the verge of being the Republican nominee when Republicans don't really like him? That's an overstatement, but McCain was against the Bush tax cuts, in favor of stem cell research, in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants, strident in his opposition to torture, believes in global warming, and was the co-architect of McCain-Feingold. There are even rumors (gasp) that he doesn't hate gays.

As for Obama, I love the guy, but let's be honest: we know very little about what kind of president he will be. His state legislative and community organizing experience is irrelevant to his current job aspiration. But I desparately want him to win the nomination, because he gives me (irrational) hope for a better future, and it's been awhile since I've felt that.

Dream Ticket. Aint' gonna happen, and it shouldn't. Someone (Dowd?) pointed out that the Clinton's would never accept VP, and Obama isn't stupid enough to be third in line in a Hillary/Bill Clinton Administration.

Turnout. Obama has potential to increase turnout. But we've also had many past elections where the Dems have counted on a date with "young, progressive voters" only to find themselves in need of a cold shower on election day. Increase turnout would be great, but to win Obama will have to overcome 1) reluctance of white southern Democrats to vote for a black man, particularly one with the middle name "Hussein", and 2) reluctance of independents and suburbanites to vote for someone with zero foreign policy experience.

If Obama does win a majority of delegates tomorrow, be prepared for an onslaught from the Clinton campaign. They pulled out a lot of stops to win NH and (sort of) NV, but it's nothing compared to what we'll see if Obama ekes out a victory tomorrow. Literally thousands of Democratic party officials and operatives got their start under Bill Clinton, and the Clintons will call in those favors in every state from here on out. It will get nasty.

"2) reluctance of independents and suburbanites to vote for someone with zero foreign policy experience."

Gee, it didn't seem to stop them from voting for George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter.

All pre-9/11, which makes a big difference, and also elected during non-war periods. Plus Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter were all governors before being elected, meaning they had (or were perceived to have) executive leadership that could make up for the lack of foreign policy experience.

Obama's lack of foreign policy experience does not doom his candidacy, but it's a hole to overcome.

Jeff, I'm betting that Clinton as president will look quite a bit like Clinton did as president. Could be wrong about that prediction, but I think we'd be in for four or eight years of incremental but significant steps in the right direction. I believe Hillary can only win with a 50%+1 strategy, so her administration will not be one of sweeping reforms. And the Clintons will be attacked, constantly, by the vast right-wing conspiracy, diminishing her potential.

I'm hopeful that an Obama presidency will be the opening act of a new progressive era. Not necessarily of the type that many liberal Democrats hope for, but one that moves the country forward on major issues. That means that we get national health reform and universal coverage, but probably not single payer. We stop the occupation of Iraq, but probably don't withdraw all our troops. We get increased funding for domestic programs, but targeted to a few key areas.

Strictly on policy, I'm not sure an Obama presidency looks that different from a Clinton presidency. But there is one key exception: Obama has the potential to create a long-lasting progressive majority; Clinton does not. For that reason alone I think he's the better choice.

As for delegates, I think your prediction is a pretty good one, but I'm more optimistic for Obama's chances post-Super-Tuesday. Even down 150 delegates, he could make that up with a few big wins in the next few states, most of which I think favor him. I also think there is about a 35% chance that Obama wins more delegates tomorrow. And that will LOOK like a crushing defeat for Clinton, even if it's not.

It is unlikely that Mrs. Clinton would accept the Vice-Presidential role for any President after spending eight years witnessing Al Gore’s plight. Also, Mr. Obama would probably not be able to endure eight years of being Vice-President to the Co-Presidency of Bill and Hillary Clinton. By the way, does a co-presidency even have or acknowledge a vice-president?

OBAMA-HAGEL ‘08

<hr/>