We have absolutely no idea how this whole Obama/Clinton thing is going to go down.
About the only thing that we'd be willing to bet on at this point is that their fight goes to the Convention. If only because we don't see any plausible way to avoid it.
We remarked after Clinton lost Wisconsin that we had bought the inevitability of Clinton's nomination hook, line and sinker. And that we had sucked on that conventional wisdom chestnut for months and months and MONTHS.
At least we have the guts to admit it.
We don't have enough fingers and toes to count the number of high profile reporters/pundits/political operatives who now seem to forget what they were saying about Obama right up until about a week before Iowa.
Noted: In fact, about the only high profile reporter/pundit/political operative we remember actually liking Obama's chances against Clinton (outside Team Obama and actual voters) is Republican strategist Mike Murphy who was, at least by our recollection, talking about how good Senator Obama looked early last summer.
Noted 2: We know, we know, there were so many others who didn't buy Clinton's inevitability. We just can't think of any of them right now. Snark.
So we had to smile, just a bit, when we came across this New York Observer article written in March of 2006, before Hillary Clinton even won her Senate re-elect.
What a difference 2 years makes.
And what an absolutely fascinating time to be a political observer.
Just be careful what CW you buy into. As always.