Just nowhere near has much as Obama.

She raised 15 million in January, plus chipped in 5 more herself.  That 20 million.   Obama raised over 30.

She has raised 4 million since Tuesday.  Obama 7 million.

So the issue isn't running out of money, it is being outspent by large amounts.   Obama's money is what really helped him ring up big wins in caucus states.  He could shell out on the ground game.

I suspect the campaigner-in-chief, will have to switch gears and become the fundraiser-in-chief.  That would hurt them on the trail, but it is probably my guess is that is what will happen.

"A long, two person campaign undermines Obama's key advantage: new, fresh faced change candidate."

Except that his standing among Democrats has steadily risen as the process has gone on.  There was a time a few months ago when Hillary led by nearly 30 points over Obama.  The expectations game perhaps got ahead of him for Tuesday, but the fact that he ran basically even with Clinton speaks volumes about his viability as a candidate.

He does have some structural disadvantages (weakness among Latinos, heavy reliance on younger voters), so to me the real question is how he expands his base.  But, as I said before, his following has grown as the process has gone forward, so perhaps he is up to the challenge.

I know exactly what you mean...every morning I come her and listen to their desperation to get HRC elected and it gets so friggin old. And the minutiae that gets churned here over and over.

I support Obama but if Hillary's the candidate I will support her 100%. Meanwhile, for HRC supporters, it's like Obama is the friggin anti-Christ.

It's like listening to a bunch of 12-year-old fanboys.

yeah, you can gauge Obama's momentum by the ugliness of the commentary.

That is what the Nagourney article is about, how does the enthusiasm translate into votes? The argument is that they don't translate into enough votes.

they will likely agree on one debate before texas and Ohio.

one debate per week is not even close to a serious suggestion.  Nobody can seriously think that either of them can take that much time off from campaigning and meeting voters.

It is not a bluff, she would happily debate once a week. How many debates will Obama agree to? Or do you think he will just buy the election and skip debates?

if she really is low on cash, that would be a good way to keep her name out there too.  plus i'll admit that she tends to do a little better in debates than he does.  it's a smart move on her part, but it does come off a little desperate.

Why wasn't Clinton suggesting additional debates before now?  This is obviously desperate and more of a ploy than anything. I am sure they will have one or two debates over the next month or so but one a week is ridiculous. She is worried that he will continue to gather momentum by racking up wins over the next 8-9 primaries/caucuses. The only way to diffuse that is by having debates (where I admit she is strong).

I don't know, the mollusk and beanbagz are making pretty solid arguments. Maybe you could learn from their example.

MO also. He won the cities and the college towns but lost everywhere else. If he can't compete outside those two areas he can't carry the state in Nov.

She could make that argument about California, but it would be disingenuous. Obama was 20+ points behind there at the end of January. She was also heavily favored in early ballots (as in Florida) giving her an institutional advantage he could never enjoy.

The endorsements and a lot of legwork almost closed the gap to single digits in California, but it was not an example of the real electoral process.

I know a lot of you guys hate Obama (not you, I don't know if you do, I'm just saying in general) but Clinton is MUCH more widely known. Like it or not, one of the reasons she has such appeal with less-educated and lower incomve voters is because they spend their days busting their asses at work and don't have the time to indulge in the political armchair generaling that most everyone here gets to play out. They don't hear about Obama much, so they don't know his name.

That's why Super Tuesday was hers to lose. That's why he can't accept her debate offer. He has to get out there and rally his forces everywhere he can and dump every dime into TV and radio adds in the hopes he can get his message out to people on their way to work or watching Letterman at night.

Obama will not get his name known in an endless series of debates. He gets his name known by holding rallies and meeting people. It's his strength so it's what he does. Making fun of it all you want, but it works for her the same way that Hallmark channel thing probably worked for Hillary.

And Hillary is corrupt.  She has been bought off by the Drug and Oil companies and you are all too blind to see it.

Don't want a candiate who doesn't owe something to the special interests?

The people own Obama and that is the way it should be.

lol. Because HRC wasn't the inevitable nominee when she started. How sad for you.

And how sad for HRC that she has the stories about Frank Giustra, Denise Rich, Norman Hsu, Aaron Tonken, Peter F. Paul, Sant S. Chatwal, the IPA, Yah Lin Trie, John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Roger Tamraz, Jeffrey Epstein, John K.H. Lee, Pauline Kanchanalak, Ng Lap Seng, Abdul Rehman Jinnah, Ron Burkle, and Vin Gupta waiting to be sprung on her again.

1.  Hillary's 'problem' with Republicans and Independents is getting repeated a lot, but what is the evidence for it?  Edwards was the guy getting most of that vote back when he was in the race.   So what's the evidence that the Edwards support has gone to Obama?

2.  Obama's red state wins might mean something, or they might not.  Republicans are great at getting out the vote when it counts ... in the General Election.   This was Bill Clinton's much-maligned point when he said that South Carolina primary outcome is meaningless because they always go Republican in the general.  

I'd love to see exit polls or opinion polls indicating what was driving the votes in those red states.  It certainly is interesting.  

I think what people are saying is that in the contest where he goes head to head with Hillary, he showed strength in urban areas, but not in rural areas.  Kansas, Utah, N. Dakota and Alaska weren't really contested by Hillary.  That just doesn't translate into having appeal in rural/conservative areas.  He won them fair and square, but not because he had great appeal in those areas.

Additionally, the fact that he won those caucuses does not mean he'd do well there in an GE.  There are at least some Dems in every state, so someone is going to win the primary/caucus.

He California he won the SanFrancisco Bay area.  In Missouri he won St. Louis.  In both states he lost rural areas.

As for the rest you mention some were caucus states and Clinton basically ceded the caucus state.   That was well covered headed up to Feb 5.

Furthermore, I bet if you look at Kansas he did best in Lawrence, and if you look at Colorado, I bet he did best in and around Boulder.

I am not making this stuff up.  It is starting to written up in local and national papers.   Obama's strength's are urban centers, and areas surrounding universities.

Take your partisan blinders off.  Clinton didn't cheat.  She played by the rules.  She didn't campaign.  She herself can't seat these delegates.

But these delegates may be seated.  The DNC (Dean is not fan of Clintons) has been working with MI and  FL since their decision and they are working with them now.  There may some sort of compromise fashioned.

If not, as Howard Dean has said, and some have posted on here, the decision to seat those delegates will be made by the credentialing committee, which has not yet been assembled.