This is it for Hillary

In the debate the other night I thought Hillary started out weak, just because I'm so underwhelmed by the "misleading fliers" charge. This is the type of thing that I feel was preaching to the choir--if you are already a Hillary supporter you might be angry by this, but who the heck else cares--it's only infuriating if you're a campaign worker. Obama had a strong response comparing his health care plan with hers. Hillary responded, first stumbling with the malapropism "both sides of our campaign" but then had a great, passionate response on universal health care. Obama had a dispassionate response, and there was another back-and-forth.

In the whole exchange, Obama came off very well, carefully explaining his plan, while Hillary came off as too passionate perhaps. Obama would bring it back to details, which he explained effectively, which blunted Hillary's passion.

Then there was the SNL comment by Hillary. "I find it curious that I always have to answer these questions first. I think if we've seen Saturday Night Live, we can say why don't they ask Barack if he's comfortable and would like another pillow." I liked this comment, but I'm biased. I saw the SNL bit, so I felt "in the know." I thought it was hilarious because it's true, the media do love him. But I had a conversation with someone who thought it came off whiny. It sure is hard to be a woman running for president--how the heck do you attack your opponent? This debate was a clear victory for Obama, in my mind. He looked presidential; he looked like a winner; he outshone Hillary.

Obama promised a phased withdrawal from Iraq, but with "ample time" to make the political settlements they need. Both candidates said they would keep residual troops in Iraq. Hillary misfired on an attack on Obama being chair of a subcommittee of the Foreign Relations committee and not holding hearings on Afghanistan. Obama said he wasn't chair of it until the campaign started. Besides, everyone knows that Afghanistan and Iraq are linked; this was not an effective attack by Hillary.

After the commercial break Obama had to respond to a video of Hillary mocking him, which was played in error. Hillary was at a rally and said: "Now I could promise that if we all come together, the skies will open, celestial choirs will sing, light will stream down, and everything will be perfect!" Barack said, "sounds good!" which was funny, but then somewhat bungled his response to Williams query, "What'd ya think of that," because he doesn't have a good sense of humor--he said "I think Sen. Clinton showed some good humor there" which was so wooden. He thankfully added, "I'd give her points for delivery" which got a few laughs. But what about, "Her impression of me was so good, it almost makes me want to vote for her," or "That is totally inaccurate; I've always been careful to only promise one celestial voice, not whole choirs." But Hillary's response was equally insipid: "I was trying to have a little fun. It's hard to find time to have fun on the campaign trail." Sheesh, just terrible.

It all comes down to Ohio. The voters there have been inundated with calls and mailers, even non-Democrats. The weather has been wintry this week, if it's like that Tuesday it'll probably favor Obama. But apparently the cold is going to lift on Monday.

Frank Rich writes:

In the view [of Clinton fans], their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3. In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.