The Note: Rocking Cleveland

Feb. 26, 2008 -- It comes down to this for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton: What can a 20th debate bring that the previous 19 haven't?

By now, we get it -- there's the 35 years of experience, the battle scars, the 10-point plans, Day One. But one more time (with feeling now) -- in a "change" election, where Democratic voters have shown no inclination to look backward, how exactly is it that Clinton, D-N.Y., will help them look forward?

As one debate veteran joins Sen. Barack Obama's bandwagon, it's Clinton's last chance to hit reset before the voters of Ohio and Texas determine her fate -- and her challenge is to bring Obama down a bit while building herself up. If Monday's terrain-shifting speech is preview, the arrows will obscure the olive branches at Cleveland State -- and it won't matter what outfits the candidates wear.

Barring a major misstep (and practice makes perfect), not even a last debate is going to change everything, or even reverse a months-long trend line. But at least, this time, (we think) we know which Clinton we're going to get: Expect sharp contrasts (and sharp language) in snowy Cleveland Tuesday at 9 pm ET, in what could be the last Democratic debate of the cycle.

Ladies and gentlemen, your closing argument: Clinton "assailed rival Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as unwise, inexperienced, impulsive and indecisive -- in short, a risk to the nation," per ABC's Jake Tapper and Eloise Harper.

If you want to get Democrats' attention, compare a rival to George W. Bush: "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security," Clinton said Monday.

The speech "was part of an effort that the former first lady's advisers say is aimed at 'raising the stakes' in the contest," Perry Bacon Jr. writes in The Washington Post (though as omens go, the fact that she lost her voice mid-way through wasn't forgotten).

"Over the next week, Clinton will seek, in sometimes dark terms, to frame the challenges facing the next president in the hopes that it will reinforce the experience argument that failed to stop Obama from winning 11 straight contests so far."

It's "kitchen sink" time, Patrick Healy and Julie Bosman write in The New York Times.

It "reflects her advisers' belief that they can persuade many undecided voters to embrace her at the last minute by finally drawing sharply worded, attention-grabbing contrasts with Mr. Obama," they write.

But "they said she would try to avoid making harsh personal attacks on Mr. Obama, particularly since Mrs. Clinton drew widespread attention and praise at the debate last week for saying she was 'honored' to be on the same stage with him."

Clinton needs to make this a choice, not a referendum. As targets go, there's NAFTA, 527s, pilfered words, the experience gap, the untested-media-darling thing, and (big maybe here) nefarious insinuations, as epitomized by what was either a clumsy attempt to get a photo of Obama in African garb into circulation or a clever attempt to make Clinton look desperate.

(That last dust-up -- we trust -- settles on the second day, its motives and message shrouded to all but Mr. Drudge.)

But darkness is beginning to settle on the campaign -- and not in the way Clinton wants. This remains a "change" election where she is the status quo. What if Obama has grown in stature because of his relative lack of experience -- his freshness -- not in spite of it?

Winning is making Obama look like a winner (novel concept). The numbers back it up: It's Obama 54, Clinton 38 in the latest New York Times/CBS national poll; three weeks ago, they were tied at 41.

"In the past two months, Senator Barack Obama has built a commanding coalition among Democratic voters, with especially strong support among men, and is now viewed by most Democrats as the candidate best able to beat Senator John McCain in the general election, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll," per the Times' Robin Toner and Dalia Sussman.

"Mr. Obama has made substantial gains across most major demographic groups in the Democratic Party, including men and women, liberals and moderates, higher and lower income voters, and those with and without college degrees," they write. "But there are signs of vulnerability for Mr. Obama, of Illinois, in this national poll: While he has a strong edge among Democratic voters on his ability to unite and inspire the country, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is still viewed by more Democrats as prepared for the job of president."

The AP-Ipsos poll finds similar movement: "The Associated Press-Ipsos poll highlights how the bottom is falling out among some supporters of Clinton, the New York senator, since the last survey was taken two weeks ago," Alan Fram and Trevor Tompson write.

Another poll to bake things in: "The sense that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Rodham Clinton has trumped concerns about whether he has the experience necessary to be a good president, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds," USA Today's Susan Page writes.

"The air of inevitability that once surrounded Clinton has shifted to the Illinois senator, now seen by seven in 10 Americans as the likely Democratic nominee."

Forget the infighting, the contradictory messaging, and the strategic blunders. Another novel concept: Obama could be winning every bit as much as Clinton is losing, per The New York Times' Adam Nagourney.

"There is one factor that, more than anything else, may prove to be the root cause of Mrs. Clinton's troubles: Senator Barack Obama," Nagourney writes. "If Mrs. Clinton ends up losing the race, the real reason may be nothing more than she was not better than an opponent she could never have anticipated."

The Obama train picks up a passenger on Tuesday: Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., becomes the first former candidate (among those who stuck around for the voting) to make an endorsement, dropping his promise to remain neutral in the race at a 9:30 am ET press conference in Cleveland.

Chelsea Clinton (profiled Tuesday evening on ABC's "Nightline") understands the stakes: "I think we do have to win in Texas," she said Monday night in Lubbock, per ABC's Kate Snow. "And I think we will win in Texas if we work hard."

Add Dee Dee Myers to the second-guessers: "I think the campaign [has] in many ways been poorly run, which I don't think anyone expected from her given all her experience and experienced people she surrounded herself with," Myers told NY1 News.

And don't underestimate the magnitude of this concession: Harold Ickes tells The Boston Globe's Susan Milligan that it would it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to end the primary season with a majority of pledged delegates. Said Ickes: "She would have to win percentages in those states that are just plain unattainable."

The Washington Post's Dana Milbank writes up the "alternate universe" of Camp Clinton, on display for reporters Monday at a Christian Science Monitor Breakfast.

"To keep the press from declaring the race over before the voters of Ohio and Texas have their say next week, Clinton aides have resorted to a mixture of surreal happy talk and angry accusation," Milbank writes.

"Yesterday, Ickes played the good cop. 'We think we are on the verge of our next up cycle,' he reported."

It's "full recriminations mode" for the Clinton campaign, Mike Allen and John F. Harris write for Politico.