Prognostication
Obama wins Texas by more than 10.

Obama wins Obama by less than 5.

Obama wins Vermont by more than 20.

Clinton wins Rhode Island.

I didn't keep up with the race much last week hiding out in the Swiss Alps. I had no Internet access and didn't buy the IHT but I did watch some CNN, BBC and Sky.

I did see enough to be disappointed in Clinton. She seems to be determined to go out on a low.

The pundits have interpreted Clinton's turn to the negative as her following the tried and true political strategy for candidate down in the polls. Going negative for the trailing candidate is received political wisdom but I always heard it with a caveat "but only if your negatives are below a certain level, say below 25%" and "only if you are in a close race."

Going negative does drive up the opponent's negatives, but it also drives up the attacker's negatives. The other received political wisdom I have always heard is that if your negatives reach toxic levels, say above 45%, you are unelectable.

Going negative can close a lead in the polls but only if it is a few points. Clinton hasn't had a close race since Super Tuesday.

Clinton has always flirted with toxic levels of negatives even among Democratic voters. So it is puzzling that Clinton would go negative at this late date and particularly after her unfortunate experience in South Carolina.

So we have two Democratic candidates with trivial policy differences, one with a better selling experience message, the other with a more potent change message. For Hillary to go negative now seems like political suicide. Not only is it unlikely to win her the kind of margins she needs in Texas and Ohio, it will probably drive away the Democratic establishment who are getting increasingly impatient for an anointed candidate that start the race against McCain.