Contributed by Brian Krenz on 2/19/08

There are a million reasons to believe that Sen. Barack Obama’s recent burst of momentum following an eight-state sweep will fade. Pollsters and pundits, writers and prognosticators have chanted the “m” word many times in the past. After Obama won Iowa, the media immediately began talking about his chances in the general election (so much so, I believe, that New Hampshirites voted in large numbers, not necessarily for Sen. Clinton, but simply for the election to go on – an anti-media vote, if you will).

Very early on in the campaign, Hillary was the inevitable winner. How on earth would Obama (or any other candidate for that matter) wrestle momentum from the New York Senator before the Iowa caucuses? Needless to say, the media was mistaken in those instances and, in retrospect, maybe not all that surprisingly. The history of this election dictates that even when the media is quick to claim one candidate has momentum, the voters are apt to ignore that claim altogether. So when Howard Fineman of MSNBC and Newsweek says that it is essentially “impossible” for Hillary to win the most pledged delegates, or when James Carville says that if Hillary can’t win Texas and Ohio “this thing is done,” do I believe them? History tells me no, but my instincts tell me yes. I should be careful about buying into this media-appointed momentum. After all, I too believed Obama would ride an unstoppable wave to victory in New Hampshire. After his exceedingly impressive performance in South Carolina, I said he could win California – certainly Massachusetts was his for the taking. Alas, no. I was wrong those times and others – and we’ve only been voting for a little over a month – do I dare go bold again?

The answer is yes. Something is different about this supposed momentum swing – something almost tangible. Obama seems to carry himself with more confidence than in the past. At a large rally in Madison, Wisconsin Tuesday night, he looked calm, cool, and – dare I say? – presidential. It’s not hard to see why so many voters have fallen in line behind the charismatic leader. His oratorical skills are unparalleled in modern politics, perhaps barely matched in the history of the nation. But there’s something else about him – a shine of sorts – like a brand new iPhone. Obama is the new, must have politician, and after examining exit polls in Virginia and Maryland, it seems that nearly everyone – young and old, rich and poor, men and women, black and white and Latino – wants a piece of the inspirational action.

But along with this broad, cross-demographic support and the sheer newness factor of Obama’s persona and campaign (which he’s really had all along), there is something else that’s different – the sense of animosity emanating from Sen. Clinton’s campaign. Clinton has found it exceedingly difficult to congratulate Obama on his recent victories. She finally did so Wednesday in Texas after a long silence on the matter that began after Obama’s sweep of Louisiana, Washington state, Nebraska, Maine, and the U.S. Virgin Islands over a week ago. She also recently launched a negative TV advertisement in Wisconsin, criticizing Obama for his reluctance to debate her. And does anyone else think the way she packed up and headed to Texas well before the counting of Tuesday’s Potomac Primary results even began was a little dismissive to the many Americans voting in Virginia, Maryland, and D.C. (Her campaign is now resorting to calling the states she won “significant,” thereby implying that these wins, and others, of Obama’s are somehow insignificant.)? Of course, it’s easy to write-off these acts as merely tactics of a struggling candidate. She doesn’t want to congratulate Obama for fear of lending additional credence to his victories. She feels a need to go on the offensive and paint Obama in as negative a light as possible, and that includes negative ads. She believes it is only wise to head to the states where she has a perceived strength, in this case Texas. These points are all true, but I can’t help but think something else is going on.

At one of her non-congratulatory speeches in El Paso immediately following the Potomac Primary results, the Senator looked tired, even overwhelmed. Her whole life has been building to this moment. She has been planning her presidential run since Bill was spinning against Newt Gringrich and the other Republicans in the early 1990s. She believed the presidency was owed her, and now she looks like she thinks it is slipping away. Maybe it is slipping away, maybe she will still do well in Texas and Ohio as her campaign has been saying for weeks and the race will move on full-force. But it is starting to look like her sense of entitlement; the years of Clinton-spin; and the drama of her marriage, her occupation of the White House, and her political career are starting to catch up with her. She looks desperate.

As a staunch Obama supporter, I’m not sure whether to be glad or feel sorry for her. Watching Obama, it is easy to believe that her time is over, that the improbable rise of the Clintons is soon to be met with an improbable fall. Obama is new while Clinton is old. Obama is presidential while Clinton is desperate. Of course she can, and undoubtedly will, bounce back to a certain extent, but as her desperation grows, as her visage appears more hum-drum, as her speech turns to droning, I have to wonder: do we even want her?

RELATED CONTENT

• • VIDEO Keith Murray Making “Nobody Do It Better”

  • JILL SCOTT The Real Thing: Words and Sounds Vol. 3

  • VIDEO The Real: Auditioning’s No B.I.G. Deal

  • Former New York Giant Gets Back to His Roots

  • VIDEO The Real: Please Be Our Facebook Friend, DJ Drama