GovernmentExecutive.com

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., clearly had a good night on Tuesday. With his wins in Wisconsin and Hawaii, he seems to be closing in on his party's presidential nomination. Not nearing a majority of the delegates, mind you, but building enough of a delegate lead that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., would have to chalk up massive victories beginning in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Vermont on March 4 to start catching up.

Such is the byproduct of the Democrats' proportional representation system: It's hard to build a significant lead and even harder to overtake one. You can't say that Obama has built such a lead yet, but he is widening the gap each week, and that feat alone is significant.

When one candidate has won 10 straight primaries and caucuses, each by considerable margins, and is making dramatic inroads into his opponent's demographic base, it would take a game-changing event to prevent that candidate from winning the nomination. Obama certainly appears to be in that position today.

But just as Wisconsin and Hawaii voters were preparing to go to the polls, Obama began drawing some of the toughest press coverage in his political career. News broke that he had borrowed rhetoric from Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, the other major African-American statewide elected official (and a fellow client of Obama strategist David Axelrod). Another story said that Obama was reneging on a commitment to not raise private contributions in the general election. And then his campaign came under more scrutiny when his wife, Michelle, commented, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country -- and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

These stories surfaced too late to measurably affect Obama's performance in Wisconsin and Hawaii. If any fallout does result, it should be fully reflected in the results of the March 4 Ohio and Texas primaries and in the next round of national and statewide polls. We'll soon see if these potential controversies become major obstacles for Obama, or just annoying distractions. His support among voters is based less on his experience, governmental accomplishments, or specific policy positions, and more on his style, personality, and broad but somewhat-hazy message of change, the future, and new ideas. So this support may be a bit less set in concrete than if it were grounded in specifics. Or you could say that the concrete is still wet and has not yet hardened.

The negative stories about Obama are enough to give the pundit class a bit of pause before slamming the coffin lid shut on Clinton's chances this year. This increasingly cautious prognosticator was certainly about to write her off. After all, if anyone has ever lost 10 primaries in a row and still won a presidential nomination, it's news to me. But it's worth giving Clinton a few more days before declaring her campaign dead, given the unpredictability of this race for both parties so far.

Some Democrats worry that Obama may be starting to take on a bit of water, but they should realize that it's best for them to know now whether he'll sink or swim. If nominated, he'll have to survive a flood of charges from Republicans and conservative groups that will be a lot rougher than the ripples from Clinton and her allies.

In the absence of a major turnaround, though, Obama will be the Democratic nominee for president this year. Sure, he doesn't yet have a majority of the 4,050 delegates in hand. Indeed, with nearly 20 percent of all of the delegates (of the superdelegate variety) not selected by primaries or caucuses, it's almost impossible for a candidate in a race that goes contested into February to win an outright majority of pledged delegates.

But Obama is gradually building a lead, and as it grows, he'll enjoy a snowball effect that will roll over donors, superdelegates, the media, and so much more. If Clinton doesn't score some big wins starting in Ohio and Texas, the pressure will begin to build on her to step aside. And that pressure will increase every Tuesday until she does so or pulls off some kind of miracle.

COMMENTS

• Well spoken, Bee Bee. I still haven’t figured out who I am voting for; I only know who I’m voting against and I guess, this year, that will be enough. If we were to hold a higher moral standard for our leaders than ourselves, then we’d have to rewrite the bibliographies of a number of our best presidents. Presidents Kennedy and Eisenhower are just a couple that we now know had feet of clay. Besides, doesn’t the Good Book say we should be Christian in our forgiveness; for none should seek to cast the first stone? I saw 60 Minutes this weekend and was amazed to hear them address some of the ignorance known as “email exposé” around here. The Obama/Muslim conspiracy, the left wing taxing/immigration cabal Hillary was inducted into, Bush and the oil prices, are just a few. Bravo to them!! The email attacks have becoming increasingly insidious. I am continually amazed at the number of my good friends who are outrage enough to forward this claptrap to me; all in an effort to save our nation. I know my friends and feel they are only doing what they think best with the information they have. I try to correct their misunderstandings; unfortunately; still, like Skeeter, they don’t often appreciate my efforts of debunking their version of reality. Tip off Posted March 3, 2008 2:43 PM
• I'm sorry Christmas Tree, but I agree with becmaster65. Bill Clinton's sexual shennanigans did not affect me personally. I thought they were tasteless and disgusting; however, since I didn't look to him as my moral compass, I didn't give a rat's behind what he did in that regard. I voted for him to be President and as far as I'm concerned, he did a good job of running the country. Other than that, what he did (or who he did) was none of my business as long as it didn't affect his job performance. I "hired" him to be President, not the King. To me, if there was any negative impact on the country it was caused by the grandstanding morons who wasted time and taxpayer dollars trying to impeach him. They didn't give a rat's behind about anything other than trying to stick it to Clinton. They could have censured him instead. If I thought they were doing it for the good of the country, I might feel differently. Please understand that I'm not condoning lying or sexual misconduct, etc. I just think that that whole impeachment mess was a waste of time. Furthermore, I'm tired of people downing Hillary because she stayed with her husband. We have no idea WHY she stayed with him. I think that in their own weird way, these two people really love each other. In any case, who cares????? I think the woman has what it takes to run this country well. bee bee Posted February 27, 2008 7:02 PM
• To becmaster 65: Who are you kidding? The ex-President of the United States of America gets oral sex in the White House, lies about it, then gets impeached, and this had no negative effect on the country? Wow, and Hillary has her own baggage, plenty of it! She stayed married to him so she could do what she's doing, faking it. Being First Lady was a ceremonial duty, and speaking as a New Yorker, she hasn't sponsored one bill to help New York. Hope she loses, the loser that she is! ChristmasTree Posted February 26, 2008 3:58 PM