As others have said, no worries man, as long as you realize that you're pretty constantly jumping to conclusions - it's entertaining. :D


Only on the Democratic side. Republicans still have a secret ballot in Iowa for the caucus.

This makes a ton of sense to me, even more so when you figure in the overall unlikeability of Romney.

This is going to sound silly, but I don't think the crying thing is going to be good for her in the long term. I think part of the bias against having a female executive is the belief (correct or not) that they'll fold under the highest pressure and/or become emotional at the wrong time. You look at females elected to the highest positions in their countries (Thatcher, Bhutto, Meir, Merkel) and they've pretty universally put forth an image of being pretty tough and unemotional.

I'm on the other side of that one, flere. For years, people have wanted to see a human side of Hillary, and the crying incident did that. And we're only talking about misty eyes, not an all-out Muskie blubbering.

I'd be curious to know if any of the Hillary-haters on the board think she isn't tough because of this.

I pretty much think Hillary sucks. So forgive my bias.

Look -- Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are all out there pretty friggin' exhausted, working hard, doing everything they can for a vote and all of them have been down far worse than Hillary at times...and if any of them started crying there campaign's would be over. Period. Hell, at least wait till the end to cry, if you find out you don't win, that's cool. But to cry because you're losing? The fight is still on and I don't think crying is the right national TV strategy to get votes. It worked this time (amazingly) , but I think it's crap.

The standard for President of the USA should be the same for men and women. If crying on national TV is a PR disaster for a man, it should be a PR disaster for a woman.

Is getting misty eyed when talking about one's country a PR disaster for a man? I don't think so.

I didn't get the sense she "cried" because she was losing. Here are the exact words she spoke:

“I couldn’t do it if I just didn’t passionately believe it was the right thing to do,” she said here in reply to a question from an undecided voter, a woman roughly Mrs. Clinton’s age.

Her eyes visibly wet, in perhaps the most public display of emotion of her year-old campaign, Mrs. Clinton added: “I have so many opportunities from this country, I just don’t want to see us fall backwards. This is very personal for me — it’s not just political, it’s not just public.”

I have no problem at all if someone, man or woman, gets visibly moved by something they believe passionately in. If anything I think it's a hallmark of a good leader, though perhaps not a good politician. (Sadly, the qualities that make a good leader are rarely found in a good politician).

We see men get misty-eyed all the time when "overcome" by emotion. It's pretty common place in sports when a team wins a championship or a player announces his retirement from a game he played since he was a boy and loved passionately. These are never "PR disasters". In fact, these guys are lauded for it.

Quite the contrary, I'd say it was an extremely effective and calculated move. It's obvious her prior strategy wasn't working, and it was the just right show of emotion at the right time.

As others have already said, it wasn't an all-out ball-fest. Not enough for others to think she may be too emotional, but just enough to show that she does have emotions.

Her corporate funded political strategists seem to know exactly what they're doing.

A lot of you do not remember the Clinton years because you were in HS/college and/or didn't care like you do now. I have followed the whole Clinton years in the same way most of you have been following the Bush years. What you may not remember from Clinton was the widespread belief of fake sincerity. Even the major media outlets picked up on it and made references/jokes about it (e.g., the biting of the lip, the sorrowful eyes, the purposeful hand jestures, etc.). He was the Selfish (or Self-Centered) President whom every action was to draw attention to himself or to draw criticism away from himself. Hillary is being coached in everything she says or do and that's where the problem lies because she not personable, charismatic or young/hip. While Edwards come off as a huckster, Obama and McCain (and Huckabee) are coming off as more real. After the years of Clinton phoniness and selfishness, and years of Bush arrogance and secretiveness, voters for both parties want something more real.

Was it a PR disaster when Bush cried? Or LBJ? Or Churchill?

Why "amazingly"? Clinton is seen as an ice queen (as most female leaders have been in the past... Thatcher, Meir, etc.). Emotion would help sway people into questioning that stereotype.

If you had a male "ice king" crying, I think it may help him as well. But the men in this campaign (or most any really) aren't seen that way.

If Hillary wins the Dem nomination, Mike Bloomberg gets in the race and that means, the GOP might have a much better road to keeping its clutches on the White House.

Dola --

I hadn't heard about the hecklers who said "Iron My Shirt" in the background of that one Hillary rally.

I think that they were plants. But even still...she's going to turn this into Hillary against the men. Smart move, really. But will it work? I don't think America is opposed to a woman President.

I just think lots of people are opposed to her. There is a big difference. But we'll see what happens in the coming weeks, after people wipe their faces and catch their swooning breathe from both of the leading candidates on the Dem side.

The Iron my shirt guys were a stunt from a radio morning show. I think they were from a Boston station, but I don't remember.

Yup, seems to be the case.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/0...-my-shirt-post

I wonder with Richardson dropping out who does the roughly 4-5% he had go to? It could be a deal if alot of the hispanic voters go over to say Obama. It lloks like it will be a close race between Clinton and him with Edwards far back in the rear siphoning votes from Obama mostly .

Richardson voters were, by and large, persuaded that he was strongly "qualified" for the job, more than anything else I heard. My guess (and it's little more than that) is that many Richardson supporters will look to Clinton as their default next choice, and not Obama.

Richardson and Clinton were very close (and there is strong assumptions that Richardson may get Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination), so I think most of Richardson's support will flock to Hillary.

This is a dropping out that Clinton likes, unlike say, if Edwards were to drop out, because I'm positive that most of his support would flock to Obama in that case.

God, Richardson as the VP. I hope not. I would love to see a Obama/Edwards ticket.

I heard through the grapevine that Indiana Senator Evan Bayh thinks he has a really good chance of getting Clinton's VP position if she wins the nomination. There might be some truth to it since he is really high up in her campaign.

NPR reported this morning that Richardson is likely dropping out today.

I think I got the answers that I expected from the anti-Hillary folks. They mistrust her motives but it helped more than it hurt.


A colleague of mine and a former Richardson staffer who was modestly active in his campaign tells me that she is inclined to support Hillary. But she's a little too disappointed right now to be very excited about it.

My sense is the same as yours, QuikSand, that the plurality of Richardson supporters will likely move to the Clinton camp. I'm not sure how big of a blip it is on the radar screen, however.

How does everyone feel about where Ron Paul's supporters will land when he finally drops out? I really like him, although my support currently is for Obama. I'm wondering if a Ron Paul drop out could be an Omaba / Edwards boost, assuming most of his supporters are moderates and independents?

If Paul drops out, his supporters will spend the next 11 months trying to get people to write him in, in November.

If Hillary does get elected, I wonder if she finally jettisons Bill. Actually, I guess she waits until re-election time...after that, THEN she kicks him to the curb.

Fear leads to Anger, Anger leads to Hate, Hate leads to Suffering, SFL Cat. I'd say you're in Step 2 already. Don't fall into the dark side.

Thanks for the tip, Lord Vader. :)

It's what I do. ;)

John Kerry officially endorses Obama today. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

This will make sense months from now but...

"I voted for Obama before I voted against him."

:D

You're on fire today, Dutch. :p

I prefer Obama for Hillary and, if I had an actual Democratic primary in my state, I'd vote for him. That said, there really is something very appealing about the idea of Clinton becoming president, beyond the fact that she'd be the first woman president.

I would just so enjoy watching all those haters, of which there are legion, go absolutely apoplectic. They'd finally get a little taste of how the rest of us have felt over the course of much of the last eight years and it would be glorious. :)

What about those of us who didn't want Bush in the last 8 years, and who don't want Clinton in the next 4 or 8? I guess I could move to Canada like my sister did :) (She didn't move for political reasons)

I'm really really hoping that my choice in at least one of the two parties is chosen, but I am not holding my breath as I am far too moderate for America

Collateral damage.

Oh we already know...we had to put up with eight years of Bill. :p

If Hill gets in, it would be just like a bad rerun - minus the oval office bj.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...tical-con.html

If only I could draw stick-people, I'd be a legend around here. :)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/dai...100.guest.html


It's been a while since I've been able to say this, but I agree with Rush Limbaugh. At the end of the day, I think that it will be Clinton. Never bet against the house.

Sophistry, in my opinion. The only election in recent history for which this is a meaningful statement is 2004. Gore obviously was sitting VP in 2000, which is a massive advantage, and Clinton was the incumbent in 1996. Are we sure Clinton was the "machine" candidate in 1992? Elections further back aren't particularly relevant to today's electioneering.

Along the same time frame, let's look at the Republican candidates. Bush over McCain in 2000 was a victory for the "establishment". Dole was quite clearly the "establishment" candidate in 1996.

So I wonder if Kerry supporting Obama puts the nail in Edwards coffin (campaign)? I mean the guy can even get the man who he ran with in the last election to support him for this one. I don't think you can put any positive spin on that.

Oh, I think that the Republicans do it too.

James Earl Carter

So, I'm not the only one.

I find a good rule to be that Rush Limbaugh is full of shit. If I want intelligent commentary on the right, talk radio isn't the place to go. This is the 3-times married guy and pill-popper who rants about the "sanctity of marriage" or how "drug-abusers should be jailed"? His audience is the Michael Moore of the right - they don't want to think, they want to be lead.

Clinton was an unknown yokel from just west of nowhere in 1991-2. The Democratic "machine" had no candidate. It wanted Cuomo, but Bush the Elder looked unbeatable after the successful prosecution of the Gulf War, so he stayed out. Most institutional Democrats kept their powder dry until it was pretty clear that 1) Clinton was going to win or 2) their state was up and they couldn't really hold out any longer.

Anyway, I would argue that the "machines" are far less powerful today than they ever have been. They have some value for fundraising, but are not necessary to succeed in raising money and certainly no longer directly translate into votes.

I strongly disagree that Clinton wasn't the machine candidate in 92 - it was just a newer machine. Clinton's coming out was the 1988 DNC and the machine was the DLC, which was started shortly before that. It steadily rose to prominence by 1992, so much so that it rapidly replaced the old guard machine as the primary force in the party.

Now we might be witnessing the passing of the DLC as the old guard into something new. After all, we have an old, white woman as the old guard and the young, black man as the new order.

So, anyone think that the "pointless" primary will end up hurting the Dems in MI in the presidential race? Seems to me like there could be 2 factors at play here:

1) If I don't get to have a say in who runs for president, screw the Dems I either won't vote or vote the other way out of spite
2) I voted in the Republican primary (a ton of independent and democratic people are reported to be doing this because it actually means something), now I'll see it through and vote for "my" candidate in the real thing

I don't know anything about Michigan historically, so it may be that this won't be the case, but logically the above makes sense to me.

Chris Matthews suggested that when push comes to shove, they'll let Michigan have delegates at the convention who can actually vote to avoid this possibility. But more so for the base/volunteers to motivate them to get out the vote in the presidential election.

Michigan is so firmly Democratic at this point that the highly unpopular Dem Governor Jennifer Granholm easily won re-election in 2006. All the Dems had huge leads in the most recent polls (December) that tested matchups in Michigan. I think there's virtually no chance that Michigan goes red, unless the Dem nominee drives to a rally in a foreign made car and then gets out to take a piss on an American made car.

I read that last night. If they will allocate delegates based on last night's vote, that's messed up considering Obama and Edwards did what the party wanted and pulled out. I know, people could vote "uncommitted" but I'm sure that a lot of people either didn't know that or just voted for the best candidate that was actually on the ballot.

Still, it's the Democrats, and it helps the crappy candidate that the party wants, so it wouldn't surprise me one bit.

My wife and I decided not to vote. Apparently if you vote in the primary, the party gets your name and address which can lead to spam mail. We both decided that voting for Ron Paul wasn't worth it.

When it comes to the general election in November, none of this will have any impact on how we vote. I am not bitter or angry about any of this.

All true. In most states, whether a voter selected a Democratic or Republican ballot in a primary election is a matter of public record and thus made available to anyone that wants it for a modest fee. The respective parties always buy the lists as they are incredibly useful when you are targeting which voters you want to encourage to turn out.

I think the delegates would be given a free vote at the convention, not based on the primaries I think, so they go with Obama and Edwards. I could be wrong. It would be elementary by then anyways.

The expected scenario is that the either Hillary or Obama will have a majority of delegates already committed to them and that the DNC will seat the MI and FL delegates and allow them to vote. The possibility that the Democratic nomination will still be in doubt at the convention is remote.

Hillary Clinton has won Nevada 51-45% over Obama. But she only got one more delgate than Obama 13-12. She does get all the headlines though, and puts another dagger into Obama's heart. Obama desperately needs to win S.C. and I think he will. Florida is irrelevant, so Super Tuesday will be where it's at and Clinton is probably strong in the bigger states like California, N.Y., N.J. Obama strong in Illinois. If Hillary comes back and wins S.C., is it over?

No, it's not over if Hillary wins S.C. because John Edwards will drop out and potentially all his supporters will go to Obama. This thing is going to Super Tuesday, and perhaps beyond.

Your delegate count is backwards. Obama got one more delegate than Hillary even though he lost the popular vote. Much like the Electoral College, geography is more important that quantity.

Why do people assume all of his supporters will go to Obama? I think that's quite an assumption. Edwards message is appealing to blue-collar economic voters, who have been favoring Hilary over Obama.

Not assuming at all. I said potentially. It could happen, and that's why Obama will hang around, trying to get those. And why it's not over if he loses S.C.

That, I believe, will be the death knell for Obama in the long run.


I don't understand this - struggled with what? In a caucus by and for Dems, what had they been struggling with in the past?

Yeah, but don't you think it would be a pretty big blow if Obama loses another huge lead to Hillary, the comeback kid. She'd have beaten him 3/4 states and would have all the momentum. There'd still be plenty of chances to get delegates, but let's look at the Super Tuesday states:

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

How many of these states do you actually see Obama beating Hillary? Illinois for sure, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee? Mass. with Kerry's help?

Hillary picks up New York for sure, California is likely and it's for 441 delegates but I think it's proportional so Obama can minimize the damage, N.J., Arkansas, Utah, New Mexico, and a lot of these states probably have closed primary systems that will hurt Obama.

The Democratic debate has been kind of entertaining so far...

It's a disaster. Instead of focusing on the issues, we've spent the whole debate talking about how Reagan is evil, Obama wants kids to visit sex shops, and Hillary isn't truthful. Hillary has put Obama on the defensive all night.

Whatever your views are of Clinton's former Labor Sec, Robert Reich, one cannot help but be reminded of Clinton's mode of operation. Those old enough to remember had to hear about this (underhanded, snide, machiavelli-like tactics) constantly for 8 years. Not saying the past 7 years were any better but I really hope we don't have more years of this from the Clintons.

He owes this to her and he's going to do whatever he can to make sure she wins..or at least, that he doesn't. I mean, it's bad enough that he's young and that he thinks he can insult her without reprisal AND that the media is basically treating him with kid gloves.

But that he's all of those things and (due to the this) black, really probably offends them. I really never appreciated their racial pandering back in the day, because it was all toothless rhetoric and nothing substantive, but with the current soup de jour of pulling out all of the stuff as they have, it's clear that they care about no one but themselves.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

I had in my mind a while back that she/he/someone would come out and say, "do you want a black president??". This would instantly kill the candidacy so it was just wishful thinking. Not I'm not too sure that it won't happen since it is being strongly implied, you think?

I think the Dems need to keep an eye on Bloomberg. If he gets in, I think he could hurt the Dems (he seems to be center-left) and help the Republicans. If Hillary wins, I think he gets in.

Bloomberg would surely appeal to the centre in a way that none of the Dems ever could. He'll mostly attract people who are fiscally conservative who are pretty much annoyed with the GOP and who can't hold their nose to vote for Dems. Or at least, I'd be inclined to vote for him more than anyone out there right now.

What is "the centre"?


Isn't this an argument that he's hurt the GOP primarily?

I've always though he would sap voters from the Dems. He seems liberal in his social views. He's stated he would be open to the idea of looking at universal health care. He's financially conservative, but not in the tax-cutting way unless the budget allows for it (didn't he raise NYC taxes and create a nice fund surplus)?

I don't think he'll win. I think he could honestly compete with the other two in terms of votes, but the election will be thrown to the House of Representatives.

He'll have to declare pretty soon, won't he?

Bloomberg won't win a single state. What's his constituency? What's his issue? He really doesn't offer anything besides "Can't we all get along?" It's inconceivable that even with his cash he could start from zero and gain a plurality. Look at it this way, if 25% are going to vote R no matter what and 25% are going to vote D no matter what, Bloomberg will have to get 70% or so of the remaining voters. It isn't going to happen.

I don't think Bloomberg would win anything. I think he'd be a more well-heeled version of Ross Perot. People would take him more seriously, but...in the end, all he'd do is cause the GOP to legitimately win the election the same way Perot helped Clinton in '92.

Oh, I agree. Do you think he could compete in the meaningless popular vote race? Of course, anything is possible from now until November.

Nah, I don't think he'll compete in the meaningless popular vote, because as has been said earlier..he doesn't have national appeal, he's relatively unknown despite his cash...and people might -- in an continually declining economy -- feel like rich people like him are the reasons that things suck so bad in America.

I don't believe that, but I could see an Obama or a Hillary trying to inject of the populist rhetoric into the debate and make things interesting.

Frankly, I think Bloomberg is just teasing right now. I can't see what he'd have to gain from running a Presidential campaign knowing that he'd have a very slim shot at pulling off a win.

He might be bored or perhaps he's trying to maximize his legacy. Or perhaps he wants to leverage an Obama defeat in the Democratic primary into a scenario in which Barack becomes his VP candidate and they use Obama's appeal to turn the tables on "politics as usual."

All fanciful stuff to be sure. But we're just speculating and so, I'm just playing with crayons as to what he could possibly be thinking.

Another idea might be that if Romney is the GOP pick, Bloomberg could out CEO him in his sleep and that might take votes from him and if Hillary gets in on the Dem side, that my previously mentioned scenario with Obama might be just the trick to put them in a competitive situation with them, since neither has a super strong base of support.

But again, it'll be more interesting to see the next few months play out because this is so wide open that almost anything can happen as you said.

Perot enabled Clinton to win a few states that he wouldn't have won in a heads-up race with Bush (e.g. Montana), but exit polling and postmortem research indicates that Clinton would have still won the Electoral College 281 to 257. Perot's 19% of the popular vote did keep Clinton below the 50% mark, but the exit polling reveals that Perot voters would have split roughly 50-50 in the popular vote (with a percentage not even voting) if Perot wasn't in the race.

Before Perot re-entered the race late in the summer of 1992, Clinton had a substantial lead over Bush in every tracking poll. After Perot re-entered, Clinton's numbers dropped, Perot's numbers went up, and Bush stayed relatively static. This shouldn't come as a surprise, because both Perot and Clinton were seen as candidates of "change", while Bush represented the status quo.

Perot's Impact on Clinton's 1992 Victory

New York Times editorial board endorses Hillary Clinton and John McCain for the primaries.

My understanding is that his "deadline" would be March 5th, as that's the first date in which you can start doing petitions in any state (Texas, in this case) to be put on the ballot as a third candidate.

On the other hand, if he continues to dither, he has the chance to "Fred Thompson" himself out of the race.


The various pieces that have been done about him all quote "sources close to the Mayor" as saying that he's inclined to enter the race if it looks like the two nominees are both uninspiring to their respective parties.

Of course, uninspiring by what measure?

My gut feeling is that Obama will win this nomination. Obama vs. McCain is how I see the general. (This could very well be wishful thinking on my part.)

It is. Romney and Hillary will meet in the general election. No doubt about it. McCain and Romney are now dead even in Florida as Romney is capitalizing on his business background, the terrible economy, and Washington being broken. At the debate last night, everybody was saying how Romney won the economy part hands down while McCain looked like an idiot without the focus being on the Iraq war. Giuliani has fallen off and will probably finish 3rd in Florida, his highest finish yet. He might be done. All indications are that Huckabee is out of money. Obama will win S.C., but Hillary will win big on Super Tuesday. In any closed primary, she has the advantage as does Romney on the Republican side.

Hilary vs Romney, also known as the "I'm writing a candidate in" vote.

Latest Florida poll (Survey USA) is: McCain 30, Romney 28, Giuliani 18, Huckabee 14

+1

Romney vs. Hillary. Practically guaranteed now. Love or hate Bill O'Reilly, he did predict this over a year ago.

C'mon, Bucc. You're above this post, aren't you? I mean, this is just not what this thread is about, is it?

SI

SI, in my dislike for the Clintons? No. People had wondered why some that were beyond college age during the 90s still carry a dislike for them, as well as why Hillary still has such high negatives. Reich nailed it, imo, and there have been many words written recently about their tactics against Obama. That would be the source of much anti-Clinton mentality - from both parties. But you're right. Libertarians should be above such petty partisanship because that's not where the focus should lie. But past feelings and perceptions are hard to get over.

So what do libertarians realistically want? A Congress that is more libertarian-minded. For example, don't do what the Senate is trying to do with the stimulus bill. But in the end, if we can get a split legislature/executive, that'll help.

The Clinton post just seemed kindof petty to me.

As for agreeing on politics, and how we rarely do it, I'm with you on this ridiculous stimulus package, tho.

EDIT: I also agree with the split legislature/executive but let's be honest. The Dems in the legislature can never get their stuff together as they splinter and bicker like children when "in power" so it's almost like having a split legislature. Whereas the GOP is really good as having a hammer and getting things done when they're in so it's why a GOP Exec/GOP Cong is about the scariest thing out there.

SI

Today's Detroit News shows Michigan as 3rd worst place to do business (behind NY and Cal) down from 5th just last year. Michissippi can't help but continue to decline, and that perpetuates it going more blue cause the red business-minded folks are leaving in droves.

This was a state that ran Dick DeVoss, west-stater businessman vs. Jennifer Granholm female socialist. Sounding familiar?

Looks like Obama wins Carolina by a very impressive margin.

I think Super Tuesday will be the most telling thing now, because I think the questions are the inevitability of Hillary versus whether Obama can "actually pull this off." One would hope that without the smokescreen of race or gender able to give the Clinton's a chance to throw Obama off his game and strengthened by a big win whether he'll able to get back to his original message of hope and bringing people together.

Interesting point. How does such a big win that he has today work? Does it have any impact?

Great win for Obama, and totally expected.

Looking at the upcoming primaries with fresh polling data:

Florida - Clinton +18
Missouri - Clinton +15
Illinios - Obama +29
Arizona - Clinton +10
Tennessee - Clinton +14
California - Clinton +12
Alabama - Clinton +15
Massachusetts - Clinton +37
Georgia - Obama +6
New Jersey - Clinton +18
New York - Clinton +22
Connecticut - Clinton +14
Pennsylvania - Clinton +20

It looks like the Clintons will not be supporting the youth-centric 'Rock the Vote' campaign.

He might make some gains in Missouri, Tennessee, and Alabama, but I don't see him overcoming Hillary in many of those other states. The delegate count is not in his favor.

California - 441
New York - 281
Pennsylvania - 188
Illinois - 185
New Jersey - 127
Massachusetts - 121
Georgia - 103
Missouri - 88
Tennessee - 85
Arizona - 67
Connecticut - 60
Alabama - 60

He's going to be far behind in the delegate race after Super Tuesday, unless he pulls off a stunner in NY or CA, which I don't see happening.

you're forgetting that the Dems aren't "winner take all" though, they are porportional. So as long as he continues to run strong it can still be close.

And he will keep it close in some states to keep the delegate count close. He'll win Illinois and some other southern states. Hillary will win New York and a lot of the rest. How many of these Super Tuesday states can Obama beat Hillary?

Alaska
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Missouri
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Utah

Yeah, but even if he's close in the delegate race (which I doubt), she's going to have all the momentum after winning 5 of the 6 biggest states. Even with a South Carolina bump, I don't see him overtaking her in any of those 5 states.

I think this is about it.

7/21 isn't very good. I'm not sure what the delegate count would be if that were the result. Seems like a decent scenario though. Hillary will win in the north east, California, Bill's home state, not sure about the other western states. Some of those states are probably closed primaries/caucuses which will also favor Hillary. Maybe Obama can give Edwards VP or AG in exchange for his endorsement, but that might not change the result too much as Edwards supporters could go either direction. But we'll see if this big win gives Obama any momentum in the polls.

It seems to me that Obama has more talent as a campaigner, and has lower negatives even among Democrats than Hillary. Meaning, I think voters are more likely to switch from Hillary to Obama than the other way around. I feel this will be at worst a close contest, and I can easily see Obama pulling ahead.