The Note: Hopes and Dreams

March 5, 2008 -- From underneath the wave, Democrats saw their shadow -- and it's a forecast of seven more weeks of campaigning.

One more time, for old time's sake -- this thing is a race again. (How's that for a hope and a dream?)

It turned out that Brett Favre was the only veteran to retire on Tuesday: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., didn't even need to lower the bar to clear it -- the streak was snapped after Vermont made it an even dozen, with Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island coming through for Clinton.

It had been a long month between victories (and may still have been too long -- the delegate count looms large), but it's enough to shift the scrutiny to her rival, as Camp Clinton pushes the storyline of buyer's remorse.

As for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Tuesday makes three swings for the fences -- and three whiffs. If you want to beat a Clinton, you have to make sure you've finished the job.

(Obama is still the frontrunner, but if Obama thinks resting on a delegate lead is enough, he skipped 16 years' worth of Clinton-delivered lessons. Who better in Democratic politics today to reinvent math?)

And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sees his lucky streak continue: He wins twice on Tuesday -- sealing up the nomination, and guaranteeing another round of Democrats doing his dirty work for him. Clinton and Obama rejoin the battle of the decade on Wednesday, while the GOP enjoys a Rose Garden photo op that's the very picture of party unity.

Clinton is taking on Obama by means of trying to take on McCain. "This election now is not only between Sen. Obama and myself. It is, in the voter's mind, between one of us and Sen. McCain. I think that's why I did so well last night," Clinton said Wednesday on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"I think national security is the issue against John McCain. I think it is not only legitimate, it's necessary to ask voters to determine who they would like to see as commander-in-chief," Clinton added. "Now it's a real choice, because we know who the Republican nominee is going to be, and I think voters are going to want someone who can stand up on that stage, toe-to-toe with John McCain."

(And decide for yourself whether Clinton's favorable inclination toward a Clinton-Obama ticket is truth-telling, pandering, condescension, or some mix of the three sentiments.)

Now it's Obama minimizing the import of a rival's victories. "Senator Clinton is tenacious, and, you know, she keeps on ticking, and we've just got to make sure that we continue to work hard in every contest," Obama told ABC's Diane Sawyer Wednesday morning on "GMA." "We had won 12 in a row. She won two. [Speaking of fuzzy math, it's actually three.]

"As you stated, these were states that she had huge leads going into it, and we closed that gap, but we couldn't close it as much as we'd like," Obama said. "It's going to be very hard for her to catch up on the pledged-delegate count."

These are verbs Obama isn't used to seeing attached to other people's names: "Her victories snapped his winning streak at 12 consecutive contests, rejuvenated her struggling candidacy and jolted a Democratic Party establishment that was beginning to see Obama as the likely nominee," Dan Balz and Jon Cohen write in The Washington Post.

The watchword circling inside of Camp Clinton: Restart.

The word inside Obamaland: Delegates.

The two words everywhere else in the Democratic Party: Civil war.

But before you hit control-alt-delete on the race, call the IT guys (they're probably better at math, anyway). Clinton can co-opt Obama's best campaign lines, but she cannot, in all likelihood, catch up in delegates: Even victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island netted her a grand total of six delegates on Tuesday (though we're still counting), per ABC's delegate scorecard, leaving her 106 behind Obama.

"We have nearly the same delegate lead as we did this morning and we are on our way to winning this nomination," Obama said Tuesday night.

Obama will almost certainly be the next one to add to his column, with him set to travel to Wyoming in advance of Saturday's caucus, and Mississippi voting on Tuesday (and Clinton knows now that pre-spinning losing streaks doesn't necessarily make them easier -- though an upset would be a Major Event).

Per ABC's Kate Snow, Clinton could make her first campaign trip to Pennsylvania as soon as Thursday. "We will press the twin ideas of commander in chief and steward of the economy as what people are looking for," strategist Mark Penn says.

Yes, Clinton got her wins in more big states, "But a larger problem loomed: the delegate gap with Mr. Obama that seemed to leave the Clinton team the option of trying to negotiate the nomination instead of winning it," Wayne Slater writes in The Dallas Morning News. He sprinkles in some understatement: "Ultimately, the fractious nature of the party fight would be better resolved by party leaders before the convention."

"As she vowed to keep campaigning, the tight vote in Texas signaled she may yet face a tough decision in coming weeks," The Washington Post's Peter Baker and Anne Kornblut write. "The slim margin in the Texas popular vote and an additional caucus process in which she trailed made clear that she would not win enough delegates to put a major dent in Sen. Barack Obama's lead. And regardless of the results, she emerged from the crucible of Ohio and Texas with a campaign mired in debt and riven by dissension."

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter runs the numbers: "No matter how you cut it, Obama will almost certainly end the primaries with a pledged-delegate lead, courtesy of all those landslides in February," Alter writes. "Hillary would then have to convince the uncommitted superdelegates to reverse the will of the people. Even coming off a big Hillary winning streak, few if any superdelegates will be inclined to do so. For politicians to upend what the voters have decided might be a tad, well, suicidal."

"The Democratic race has come down to a contest of numbers versus narrative," Slate's John Dickerson writes. "The numbers are on Barack Obama's side."

The New York Post's Charles Hurt is blunter than most: "Hillary Rodham Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination without destroying her party. . . . In order to catch up, Clinton must rack up unprecedented victories in all the upcoming contests - a tall order. The only way she wins without such mystical intervention is if superdelegates -- the party insiders loyal to her and her husband for whatever political reasons -- step in and throw the election to her."

There are now two voting blocs that Clinton cares about (and you tell us which matters more): Voters in Pennsylvania (if April 22 doesn't seem that far away, consider that seven weeks ago we were eagerly anticipating the Nevada caucuses) and the all-important superdelegates (just maybe less likely to flock to Obama than his campaign might have hoped).