On Wisconsin

Obama is projected with a lead in the exit polls, but there has yet to be an immediate projection. McCain has been declared the winner on the Republican side, but you knew that.

I would suggest that the exit polls are right, because Hillary Clinton is apparently going to speak very early tonight. It sounds like the lead is big enough that the networks could project if they wanted to, but they're holding back to see some numbers.

Wisconsin is a predominantly white state, with substantial numbers of blue-collar voters. Obama is gaining in many respects in Clinton's core base.

One big number I'm seeing in the exit polls is that 54% of the electorate feel that Clinton attacked Obama unfairly. If she can't go negative, it's going to be a long night for Clinton supporters.

...it's been called now. Obama lost women by just 51-49 and took men by a substantial margin, so even though women made up 57% of the electorate (yay, go women!), he still took it. And there's this nugget:

The economy and trade were key issues in the race, and seven in 10 voters said international trade has resulted in lost jobs in Wisconsin. Fewer than one in five said trade has created more jobs than it has lost.

Ergo all the populist rhetoric you heard from both campaigns.

Clearly this means that Wisconsin is too small a state to matter, it's a red state, it was a caucus even though it looked like a primary, and all residents of the Badger State are cheesehead-wearing cultists. /taylormarsh>

UPDATE: This is a very astute post from Thers. It's about the delegate screw-ups by the Clinton campaign in Texas and Pennsylvania, but it can also apply to Clinton not preparing for really anything beyond Super Tuesday, and thusly blowing a winnable opportunity in Wisconsin:

Which reminds me that one of my complaints about Bill Clinton was that for all his political skills, he didn't do nearly enough to build up the D party from the bottom up. And after Reagan/Bush, well that was something that needed to happen. Granted, he was busy fending off what really did amount to a coup attempt. But still.

It strikes me therefore as a bit ironic that HRC is in her present straits. Suppose there had been the concerted effort at party organizing that didn't really happen in the 1990s. That infrastructure would have been there, now, right when she needs it. She would not have had to build it.

Don't get me wrong: I like HRC and think shed be a great president -- on her merits and not just as an alternative to McCain, who is nuts. But you know, if she does lose, I think one of the lessons that we should take from it is about the grassroots (& netroots) & rebuilding the party from the ground up. No more Penns, no more high-level advising. We'll win in the trenches, as they say, by giving 110%.

The "too many chiefs, not enough Indians" theory applies. This is why, while I find the two candidates quite similar, I ultimately pulled the lever for Obama, because he has inspired that grassroots movement that has the potential to hold him accountable as well as elect lots of people to help get the agenda passed.

...Really, what the hell does this mean?

Clinton says Obama relies on 'words'

Clinton said the primary campaign "is about picking a president who relies not just on words but on work — on hard work to get America back to work."

She told the crowd that the "best words in the world are not enough" unless they're matched with action.

Yes, he relies on "words," words that translate into voters agreeing with his ideas, and voting for him, so he can implement his policies.

Stupid words!

I'm shocked that Clinton relied on words to make that attack about Obama relying on words. She should have used smoke signals. That would have shown her commitment to work.