THE NOTE: Can She Win?

Sept. 24, 2007 — -- Five observations for this first week of fall:

1. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is the establishment Democrat, but isn't being blamed for it (and endorsements like today's by Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., drive David Axelrod and Joe Trippi batty).

2. Former governor Mitt Romney is running against the Republican establishment, but isn't being blamed for it (and his rivals aren't batting an eye -- but how many wins like this weekend's will he rack up before they start worrying?).

3. Judith Giuliani succeeding in making her husband's NRA speech memorable for something other than guns (but next time his phone will be on vibrate -- and his record means he better have a few dozen similar speeches in the offing).

4. President Bush doesn't play political prognosticator by accident (and especially not when Karl Rove beat him to making the call) -- and this is one prediction Clinton can live without.

5. Just for perspective, remember that MoveOn.org has nothing on those crazy Canadians (but that won't help The New York Times explain its oh-so-friendly discount).

Now that Clinton, D-N.Y., has closed out her healthcare week (with a round on all five Sunday shows -- who else could even score five invitations, much less succeed in not looking foolish at least once?) here comes a question that all (yes, ALL) of her Democratic rivals are asking -- and that she's only begun to answer. Can she win?

"She's already winning," Clinton's supporters like to say -- and they have the polls (and now Bayh, joining Tom Vilsack) to back them up. But the issue of perceived electability remains the one issue that presents Clinton's most significant obstacle to the presidency (and will as long as her last name is "Clinton" -- or until she can drop her negative poll ratings below 45 percent).

Among the stubborn facts for camp Clinton: the Clinton presidency wasn't all sweetness and light (and neither was the first lady); Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has an insane amount of money to drop (and he's not saving up for a big vacation or something); Democrats (to paraphrase the previous pundit-in-chief) still would rather fall in love than fall in line; and there's always a race, no matter what national polls show.

What's dangerous for Clinton is that Obama and former senator John Edwards, D-N.C. -- as well as the second tier -- are beginning to advance the same anti-Clinton argument. And they realize that time is running short.

With The New York Times' Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny reporting yesterday that Clinton has "consolidated her lead," Axelrod (of the Obama campaign) says: "The question is ultimately, Is she credible -- whether people buy her as an agent of change in Washington." And don't miss the significance of this admission, from Trippi, a top Edwards adviser: "It's pretty clear that she has sort of pulled away." (Think they may want to do something about that?)

Even President Bush thinks Clinton is going to win (did anyone think he'd toss away Karl Rove's playbook?). As the president tells Bill Sammon in his new book, "She's got a national presence, and this is becoming a national primary." But he's optimistic that a Republican will end up winning: "I think our candidate can beat her, but it's going to be a tough race."

The tidbit from the weekend that Clinton's rivals had the most fun distributing speaks to her potential impact on down-ballot races. Citing a survey by Democratic pollster Celinda Lake, The Washington Post's Chris Cillizza And Shailagh Murray report that Clinton and Obama are "trailing former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani (R) in the 31 Democratic-held House districts regarded as most imperiled in 2008, and even potentially serving as a drag on those lawmakers' reelection chances." (Lake, it should be noted, polls for Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., and asking about "liberal policies" may be a bit pushy for our liking.)

This is the backdrop for Bayh -- a former 2008 candidate (like Vilsack, briefly) himself -- to endorse Clinton at 1 pm ET in Washington today (taking away attention, oh-so coincidentally, from Obama's trip to the Big Apple). "Bayh, who had already been oft-discussed as a promising potential vice presidential pick for Clinton, had held back on endorsing her in part because of doubts about her popularity in Indiana, Democratic sources said," write Politico's Mike Allen and Avi Zenilman. "His endorsement could help undermine the argument of her rivals for the Democratic nomination that she would not be electable in a national contest."

With third-quarter fund-raising ending this weekend -- and Obama headed to Clinton's New York turf today (where he'll pick up the endorsement of the New York City correction officers' union) -- this is a critical phase for Obama.

It's enough to prompt a David Plouffe memo, which refers to Clinton as the "quasi-incumbent" who must win Iowa -- and discusses Obama's "hidden vote" that isn't registering in polls. Per the Chicago Sun-Times' Lynn Sweet, "Those hidden souls in the Obama army Plouffe writes about are younger voters who escape pollsters because they have cell phones, not land lines. Plouffe is depending heavily on this demographic to win the Iowa caucus -- if the campaign team for Obama can deliver them."

The Chicago Tribune's John McCormick writes up Obama's difficulties in nailing down working-class voters. "Obama has done well attracting the Chardonnay crowd, but he has had less success winning over Joe Sixpack," McCormick writes. Axelrod's explanation: "name recognition." (They better hope they have a better plan being executed as we speak -- one that exludes the word "arugula.")