The LA Times is running a story on some push polling that's being done in S. California.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html

"Phil Singer, the spokesman for the Clinton campaign. was contacted by e-mail last night. He answered that he was there. He was asked if the Clinton campaign was behind the push-poll, knew who was behind it or had any other information on it. That was at 5:27 p.m. Pacific time Saturday. As of this item's posting time, exactly eight hours later, no reply had been received."

California will be the state to watch. Obama is surging like mad here. Zogby has him ahead already. If the enthusiam continues I forsee a possible huge win here, perhaps as high as ten points. Romney may actually have a shot here as well, although it's probably too little too late.

I'll be absolutely fascinated by the demographic breakdowns after the fact in CA, and I hope Salon takes a look at what will have happened the day after.

Now if I can only keep from throwing a rock at my TV everytime that smug bastard, Wolf Blitzer, comes on, it should make for some exciting televison.

He'll do pretty well, but I think its a safe bet for Clinton.

Most polls do suggest Obama enjoying a surge at the moment. But most polls have been wrong lately.

Make no mistake: As the prohibitive frontrunner for over a year, Clinton should win tomorrow. She's got the name recognition and the party establishment behind her. And indeed, Tsunami Tuesday was originally crafted to play to her strengths.

If Obama can keep it relatively close in the delegate count, he's done what he has to do to move forward. If anything above and beyond that happens, it's gravy. But right now, it's just about Obama staying alive to get it back to more manageable contests in the near future.

I suspect the ad buys have been a bit low because both candidates know they can't score a knockout this round. They have to keep some money in the coffers for the upcoming primaries that will decide the nominee. Although, technically I think if Obama wins California, which it now looks like is possible, it could be called a knockout. The momentum will just too much for the Clinton camp.

Clinton's 1 1/2 hours of hallmark channel town hall was stunning. She is so impressive, knowledgable, trustworthy. Obama fluff = super bowl advertisement. Clinton depth on the issues and caring about the work she will do as the president = 1 1/2 hour long town hall on February 4. All of you undecideds take note of the difference between these two candidates.

I need to remember it for tomorrow.

We all know the real reason, but I should score a few points amongst my more progressive friends for not stating what is obvious to everyone.

I've been thinking today about one of the many ways our pre-election (primary, caucus, whatever) system sucks. As a Michigan voter, I have more than the nationwide average share of things to complain about, but this is what was getting me today:

Wouldn't it be a lot smarter to hold primaries from, say, May through August, with a convention in September, so that the momentum from the primary season would have some chance of carrying straight through to early November? (Or even: primaries June through September, convention in early October, just four weeks before the election!)

As it is, just imagine: if by any chance Obama or Clinton can clinch the nomination tomorrow -- February 5! -- the voters will have a full NINE MONTHS to cool off and cease to care before November rolls around. And the dirty ops people will have the same nine months to dig up and/or make up all sorts of dirt about whoever the nominee is. Why give them so long?

So who did she blame for her Iraq War vote this time? Was it Obama? It was Obama, wasn't it?

Did she bring up her co-sponsorship of the flag-burning bill? Who did she blame for that?

Did she talk about her support for torture?

Ooooooh. You mean she talked about the "issues!" For a minute there, I thought you said she spome about the issues.

More of the same from the Clinton camp.

Does anyone else smell that desperation?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/breaking-news-p.html

I wonder if they asked "If you knew Barack Obama fathered a black baby, would they make you more or less likely to vote for him?""

I'm sure both of the people who watch the Hallmark channel enjoyed it.

Did she explain why she voted for Kyle/Lieberman?

Did she explain why she said she'd end our occupation of Iraq with her fingers crossed behind her back? (I don't know what I'll inherit")

Did she explain what one her campaign staff ment when asked about people who don't sign on to her manditory healthcare plan? (they might have their wages garnished)

Or was it just more of her "35 years" "Day one" bunk?

male candidate - Super Bowl ad (30 seconds)

female candidate - Hallmark "talk" (1 1/2 hours)

http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/

"The Media will see to it.

It's unlikely she'll get out and out beaten across the board, but she'll still lose. She'll lose by not beating Obama across the board or she'll lose by not winning in every big state or she'll lose by not winning by a large enough margin in the states she's supposed to win or by not coming close enough in the states she's expected to lose or she'll lose by not getting the votes of the right demographic or she'll lose by not getting enough votes in the demographics that were going to vote for her anyway or she'll lose because not enough people tell the exit pollsters on their way out how excited they were to cast their vote for her.

Whatever, however.

She's going to lose.

She's going to lose because they're going to say she did and they'll say it because they want her to."

There's more at the link.