While SC is Obama's to lose, that's the only primary/caucus coming up in which he's got a solid lead.  In every other state, and nationwide, Hillary continues to dominate polls.

These numbers are really staggering.  They do not look good for the Obama nomination.  As an Obama supporter, this concerns me a great deal, because I believe Obama politics will transform this nation.  He is precisely the civic revolution America needs now.

Anyway, usually a surging, insurgent campaign gets one chance to turn the tables on the front-runner.  It seems that Obama had this opportunity after Iowa, but New Hampshire voters basically dumped a ton of cold water on the Obama brushfire.

So I think the big question right now is, what can/will Obama do to win this?  America needs Obama now, but they may choose HRC, which will be a dramatic setback for the forces of Progressivism in America.

...but I do NOT agree that electing Hillary Clinton is a "dramatic setback for the forces of Progressivism in America." As much as I support Obama, I also think that Clinton will be an excellent president and will enthusiastically support her if she's the nominee. My endorsement of Obama was NEVER anti-Clinton, only pro-Obama.  Soon, we're all going to pull together against the common enemy -- the Republican nominee -- and I am greatly looking forward to that day, possibly in just a few weeks.

I have a number of problems with her candidacy and a number of issues with the prospect of her Presidency.  While none of these will in any way preclude my support of her presidential  run, these are important issues and the primary is precisely the time they should be addressed.  

Change

We have come to the end of the conservative era.  As a worldview it is exhausted.  There are no new ideas there.  What arose as a rebuke to some stagnating ideas within liberalism has degraded into a worldwide disaster of ignorance, fear and greed.

Obama's nomination and presidency will not only be a translational stage away from the Bush era, but will truly transform the nation.  The big vision will allow Obama to create a broad, lasting, GOVERNING coalition and his rhetoric of unity will trump the divisive Lutz/Rove spin.  It will allow legislators to deliver the progressive agenda that Americans ask for on every issue, but which has been obfuscated by conservativism's outstanding packaging of a reprehensible worldview.

I have no confidence that Hillary's "experience" has prepared her for this transformational fight.  In fact, I believe that with her as a figure to pillory, the right will have the opportunity to catch its breath and whip up a solid red-faced lather among lower-income, less-educated, whites to empower Republican legislators to fight off the inevitable progressive agenda for a decade or more. (see Hillarycare)

The important thing here is that Obama has injected the critical issue of change, not as policy, but as a matter of vision for the nation and the way it can be.  Without that change in conventional wisdom, the media, conservative hacks, and moneyed interests will continue to foist the VRWConspircy.  Without the Obama vision, America's agenda will stay on the conservative playing field, and that's where Hillary will have to fight it.  On Obama's united America playing field, Americans will force the progressive agenda.  

That's the kind of change that Obama, like Reagan, will bring: a fundamental paradigm change.  And while America still suffers from the ramifications of the change that Reagan brought, you cannot hide your head in the sand and pretend that that change did not happen.

The common enemy is those who will take away our rights, who ignore the middle class and the poor, those who take our men and women to and keep us in an unjustifiable war.  And on and on and on.

Clinton may not be as inspiring as Obama, which he is.  But her record demonstrates that, given the job, she would try to implement the things that we stand for.  To be a little trite here:  let's keep our key on the prize.  Any of the candidates would be fine to me.

Sensible, unifying, and intelligent comment, as usual, Lowell.  

...is that Obama may not be able to turn it around.  He's certainly not going to do so by interviews like this.

You are correct about the NV caucus and lack of polls.

Everyone is saying the judges ruling helped Obama, BUT never under estimate if the voters of NV feel that was a raw deal? Sitting here in VA, I do not feel it was a raw deal but what do NV voters feel.

You did leave out the question in SC of who is really going to show up to vote. From my perspective it looks like the older voters choice is 50-50 for Obama-Clinton, maybe Clinton with an edge. So will the young voters, Obama's strength, turn out to vote.

As of today those are my big question?

Don't break my heart.  I already scratched out New Hampshire in my Atlas.  Don't make me do the same to Nevada!

OBAMA 08!

I don't know what to make of any Nevada polls. How do you weight them? I mean, in Iowa you look mostly at experienced caucus-goers and have a pretty good idea that most (not all) people who want to vote won't have to be at work during the caucus. But Nevada, who knows.

Nevada is wide open, in my opinion. South Carolina, you can poll a little earlier. But Nevada is a big fat question mark.  

As is often the case, Chris Cillizza's analysis is once again right on the money.  Here's the Democratic line for Obama and Clinton (tied for first place, with Edwards a distant third):

1. (tie) Barack Obama: Winning New Hampshire might have locked up the primary nomination for Obama but losing there hasn't damaged the Illinois Senator the way some predicted it might. Over the past ten days, Obama has racked up a number of high-profile endorsements from the likes of Sens. John Kerry (Mass.) and Patrick Leahy (Vt.) as well as Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano. Now, endorsements don't equal a victory, but they prove that the establishment of the party is split between Obama and Clinton. With the race certain now to extend to Feb. 5, it is Obama who starts with the early lead -- organizationally -- over Clinton in many of these states. And, with a several southern states with large black populations -- Alabama, Georgia and Tennessee -- and Obama's home state of Illinois voting that day, he'll likely have a solid delegate foundation no matter his ups and down between now and then. (Previous ranking: Tie for 1)

1. (tie) Hillary Rodham Clinton: While the Clinton campaign (rightly) notes that the race is now a delegate fight rather than a series of single-state contests, a win in Nevada would be a nice insurance policy against Obama's expected triumph in South Carolina one week later. Even is she loses both states, Clinton, like Obama, enters Feb. 5 in relatively strong shape with New York, Arkansas, New Jersey and Connecticut all looking strong for her. Clinton also went on-air in California late Thursday, a sign that she is ready to fight hard for the crown jewel of delegates available on Feb. 5. (Obama beat Clinton to the California airwaves by five days.) Since her win in New Hampshire, Clinton has sharpened her campaign message nicely -- focusing heavily on her ability to bring about change and contrasting that with Obama's alleged lack of results in public office. Winning New Hampshire bought Clinton time to make just this sort of case against Obama. The question now is whether Democratic voters are buying what she is selling. (Previous ranking: Tie for 1)