From today's Beyond Chron.

Yesterday's Washington Post had a front-page piece on Findlay, Ohio - the "Flag City" - where small-town voters in the ultimate swing state still believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim.  What the Post didn't report is that Findlay voted 2-1 for George Bush in 2004, and in 2006 rejected Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown (who won a landslide victory statewide.)  It's just the latest example of the media projecting the myth that the Presidential race is somehow close, and grasping for non-existent trends to keep it alive.

But reality says otherwise.  Women and Latinos who supported Hillary Clinton are flocking to Obama, despite the narrative that Democrats are "divided."  State-by-state polls consistently show Obama on his way to surpassing 270 electoral votes - with hints that November could become a rout.  Even national polls with Obama ahead by double digits are dismissed as "outliers," along with the constant reminder that Michael Dukakis blew a 17-point lead (without any context of two very different candidates).  The media won't admit that the Presidential race is over, and Obama is going to win.

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Yesterday's Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left - out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama's "bitter" comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn't help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the "land of fruits and nuts."  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article - except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

I wrote this for today's BeyondChron.

Hillary Clinton had reason to celebrate last night for winning the popular vote in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas - but only because Barack Obama did not deliver the final knock-out punch to end her campaign.  In the fight for the presidential nomination, Obama maintains a 150+ delegate lead - and Clinton did not put a dent in his edge last night that she needed to wage a successful comeback.  For all of the media obsession with the popular vote in Texas, it ignores two cold, hard facts: Obama won more delegates in Texas, and across all four primaries Clinton won a grand total of an estimated two more delegates. And after Saturday's Wyoming caucus and Tuesday's Mississippi primary, Clinton will be further behind than on March 3. Her campaign has just finished Act 2 of a Greek tragedy: after an arduous path full of setbacks and defeats, the heroine suddenly appears on the brink of recovery - only to suffer inevitable loss in Act 3.  Clinton's performance last night makes it even more mathematically difficult for her to win the nomination.  But she can damage Obama's prospects, and hurt the Democratic Party---  Will Party leaders allow this?

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Hillary Clinton ran a new campaign commercial on Friday - asking who you want answering the White House phone at 3:00 a.m. when something happens in our "dangerous world."  The ad was indistinguishable from what John McCain did two months ago, and within 3 hours Barack Obama felt compelled to shoot a response.  For years, Democrats have been paralyzed by fear - believing they must pick a candidate who is "tough" on national security.  It's a false dynamic that cedes to Republican talking points - and as we learned from John Kerry in 2004, doesn't help Democrats win.  Fear is an effective tactic because it causes people to behave irrationally, which is why the right has used it time and again.  But at the same time, Democrats cannot just ignore it.

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Barack Obama's 17-point victory last night in Wisconsin was not just his ninth consecutive (and overwhelming) win since Super Tuesday.  The big news was how far he cut into Hillary Clinton's base - beating her among working-class voters, winning middle-age voters decisively, and almost tying her among white women.  Clinton still holds an edge among seniors, but there's evidence that she's losing support from Latinos  - which could prove fatal in the Texas primary on March 4th.  Clinton's decision to go negative backfired, raising serious questions about how she could stage a comeback at this point.  And like last week before the Potomac Primary, the Democratic race had a last-minute "scandal" that was supposed to give Clinton a surge - only to not materialize.  That's because voters have already made up their minds.

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Last night, Barack Obama accomplished what no insurgent presidential candidate has ever done: survive Super Tuesday.  The Illinois Senator did so by amassing a broad coalition of blacks, liberals and red-state Democrats - paying off dividends across the country except in California.  Hillary Clinton's ten-point win here exceeded expectations, and such baffling returns will keep progressives guessing for days what went wrong in the Golden State.  Clinton won in part because she got a large share of support from white women and Latinos - her traditional base - as well as from Asian-Americans.  But Obama also got slaughtered in the Central Valley and other conservative parts of the state - defying the national trend, and confining his base to San Francisco and other liberal coastal counties.  The state's electorate was also very conservative when it came to Propositions: voters approved 4 anti-labor Indian gaming compacts, sinked a measure to fund community colleges, and (while it's good news for progressives that Prop 93 failed) kept the status quo for term limits.

In today's BeyondChron.

While most expected that Barack Obama would win South Carolina's primary, nobody said he would crush Hillary Clinton by a 28-point lead (a more than 2:1 margin.)  The polls were even less accurate than in New Hampshire, where Clinton eked out a surprise 3-point victory on January 8th.  Bill Clinton's attempt to marginalize Obama as a "black candidate" failed - as the Illinois Senator did far better than expected among whites, and tied Clinton among white men.  In part because black women strongly supported Obama, there was no real gender gap - which raises the question: if Democrats want to win this year, why nominate a candidate whose primary base is old white women and few others?

As the race moves to Super Duper Tuesday on Steroids, Obama has a shot because Bill Clinton has returned to dominate his wife's campaign.  Voters want "change" over "experience," and while they liked the 1990's do not want a Clinton dynasty.  But Obama must target Latinos to win - especially in California - and his latest endorsements could make the job slightly easier.  While South Carolina gave Obama a landslide victory, exit polls showed that voters there did not place a premium on Iraq.  If the War becomes an issue on February 5th, Obama's chances in California will be strongly enhanced.

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

As the Democratic Presidential race moves to California on February 5th, Senator Hillary Clinton holds the advantage in part because she leads Barack Obama among two crucial demographics: gays and Latinos.  But if these groups were more "results-oriented" about which candidate would bring about substantive change for their community, Obama could have an edge.  Clinton's husband signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act when he was President, and she has only promised to scrap part 3 of DOMA - whereas Obama would repeal it entirely.  While both have waffled on giving drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants, when pressed to take a position Clinton said "no" and Obama said "yes."  Gays and Latinos either don't know such policy differences -- or else have put them aside in favor of symbolic gestures, high name recognition or top-down endorsements.  Before it's too late, LGBT and Latino voters must look at the issues, and decide which candidate would better pursue their interests.