John McCain was left for dead nine months ago. But Denver is only four months away. Obama had better get cracking.

Sent by George de Man | 8:20 AM ET | 03-20-2008

"...whether or not Clinton sustains and increases her lead..?" What lead? She is still behind in delegates and regardless of what happens in Pennsylvania and beyond, is not likely to catch up. A virtual tie in August, should that occur, is still not a Clinton lead. Please edit your blog more carefully so as not to create mythology.

Sent by Carol Reid | 9:13 AM ET | 03-20-2008

What is this Clinton lead you speak of, Mr. Newport? Some context here would be nice.

Sent by TJ | 10:05 AM ET | 03-20-2008

More Bill & Hill spin hear. What lead? What lead? Clinton's cannot be referring to the the delegate totals that they are behind in. What lead? Please answer. What lead?

When it comes to dirt and underhanded, well you know....we saw nine years of it. Even James Carville got sick of them.

Sent by Dave Rosen | 10:07 AM ET | 03-20-2008

MUST READ

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/20/obamas_odyssey_on_race/?page=1

Today, Obama is under attack from the other end of the spectrum, accused of tacitly endorsing the Afro-centrism and deeply critical views of America expressed by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. To those who know Obama and have followed the arc of his career, the charge makes little sense against a man they have long considered a beacon of a colorblind future.

Sent by nish | 10:30 AM ET | 03-20-2008

The lead mentioned is in the Gallup poll, where Clinton has been p the past couple days.

Sent by Seth A. Roby | 10:59 AM ET | 03-20-2008

Your blog continues reporting the "lead" and "momentum" that Sen. Clinton claims to have. But you fail to note that in reality she is behind Sen. Obama in the count of delegates. You have also reported her "win in Texas", but failed to note that the delegate count is not yet complete in Texas.

I expect more balance from NPR. When you quote Clinton campaign press releases about her "lead", "momentum", and "win in Texas", it seems appropriate to balance the puffery around Clinton staff projections with some true facts about the official delegate counts. While the results are not yet official, it is very likely that Sen. Obama will get more delegates from Texas than Sen. Clinton - hardly a win in Texas for Sen. Clinton.

Sent by Gary | 11:06 AM ET | 03-20-2008

I don't think NPR has mis-reported anything here in regards to the campaign. If anything NPR shows a preference for Obama. It's just that Obama supporters are very reactionary and don't take time to read clearly and do research prior to venting a response.

Sent by Karen | 11:53 AM ET | 03-20-2008

I am a Democrat and would love to have the opportunity to vote for Barack Obama for President. If Hillary becomes the Democratic candidate, I will vote for John McCain.

Sent by Judith Karcher-Jewett | 11:57 AM ET | 03-20-2008

It's premature to suggest Obama has been badly injured especially since its possible that he has stopped the bleeding. The polls do not show the uproar nor do they show the bounceback. Lets just wait a week or so

Sent by Nol | 12:00 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Note to Karen: NPR has frequently referred to Sen Clinton's "win in Texas". Technically it is true, that she did win a narrow margin in part of the Texas process (the primary) that determines delegates for a candidate. In my opinion, the words "win in Texas" suggests that Sen. Clinton has already completed a win of more Texas delegates than Sen. Obama. The omitted balancing fact that the Texas delegate count is not yet complete has been largely ignored in reports by NPR where the words "win in Texas" have been repeated often referring to Sen Clinton. This leaves the reader with the false impression that Sen. Clinton has already won more of the complete count of delegates from Texas than Sen Obama. Even if reasonable projections showed Clinton likely to win in Texas, it is poor journalism to acknowledge Clinton campaign implications that it has already happened by omission of relevant contrary facts. If we consider that the partial Texas caucus results strongly favor Sen. Obama, then it is very likely that when the complex Texas process is finally complete, we will find that Sen. Obama may have more delegates from Texas than Sen. Clinton.

In simple language, it is very likely that Sen. Obama has won Texas, not Sen. Clinton. We cannot know until the final delegate count is made public. The NPR reports leave the reader/listener with the impression that Clinton has already won in Texas. The truth is that Sen. Obama is still very likely to win (more delegates) in Texas.

I have high expectations for NPR. The absurdly complex Texas process for assigning delegates has allowed the Clinton campaign to claim a victory in Texas that has not happened yet and is very likely to actually be a victory for Obama. It seems to me that NPR has bought in to this illusion being promoted by the Clinton campaign.

Sent by Gary | 2:51 PM ET | 03-20-2008

Note to Gary: I live in Texas and listen to the local NPR station. They've made it very clear that Obama took the most delegates in the democratic primary here. I understand the difference between the popular vote and the delegate vote, but thanks for the lesson and the patronizing tone anyway...perhaps it will enlighten some of the other readers here.

Sent by Karen | 3:27 PM ET | 03-20-2008

How come all we've been hearing about is how many more delegates and how much more of the popular vote that Barack Obama has and how difficult it will be for Hillary Clinton to catch up and now, all of a sudden, we're hearing how Hillary Clinton has "increased her lead" and Barack Obama is now playing catch up. I feel like a rag doll sometimes. Then you wonder why people are so frustrated with the media!

Sent by Jay Entrikin | 4:45 PM ET | 03-20-2008

The media loves drama and debate, simple as that, this is the most fun they have had in years. Use your own judgement. Cliton won the popular vote and Obama won the majority of the Delegates simple as that and what counts in the end we all learned in 2000, is not the popular vote.

Sent by DLH704 | 8:37 PM ET | 03-20-2008