Gallup Poll: Obama Opens “First Statistically Significant Lead” Against Clinton

A new Gallup poll shows Illinois Senator Barack Obama widening his national lead against Senator Hillary Clinton in their increasingly heated battle for the 2008 Democratic Presidential nomination — a lead Gallup says is Obama’s first “statistically significant” lead.

Meanwhile, a top adviser to Clinton said today that in effect it doesn’t matter what happens in the remaining primaries since primary votes are “irrelevant” to the obligations of super-delegates — and Clinton will win by having more of those.

The poll:

For several days, nationwide Democratic voters’ preferences have been shifting toward Barack Obama in Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. Now, the Illinois senator enjoys his first statistically significant lead, 49% to 42%, over Hillary Clinton, according to the Feb. 13-15 results. Additionally, the 49% support for Obama represents the high point for him in the daily tracking program.

Obama has won the last eight Democratic primaries or caucuses, and hopes to make it 10 straight on Tuesday in Wisconsin and Hawaii. The tracking data reflect the Obama momentum since the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday primaries, moving from a +13 Clinton advantage in Feb. 3-5 polling to a +7 Obama lead in the latest results.

Here’s the Gallup graph:

But will any of the voting in the primaries matter? A top Clinton adviser said today that it really won’t – that in the end Mrs. Clinton will get the nomination because she’ll convince the Super-delegates to vote for her.

He also called the remaining primaries “irrelevant” — even though his candidate (and her husband) are out on the hustings as you read this…acting as if they believe voters’ decisions mean something… and a lot of campaign money is being spent to convince them to vote pro-Hillary:

A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be “irrelevant” to their decision.

The claims no doubt will escalate the war of words between the campaigns, as Obama continues to argue superdelegates should vote the way of their districts. But the special class of delegates, which make up about 20 percent of the total delegate haul, are not bound to vote the way of their states and districts, as pledged delegates are.

Obama leads handily in the pledged delegate count and has won more states but trails Clinton in superdelegates, making them potential and controversial deadlock-breakers if the race ends up a dead heat come convention time.

Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign’s convention strategy.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said, adding that they would do so soon after the last contest on June 7 in Puerto Rico. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

This is about as blunt as it gets: Hillary Clinton is out there appealing for votes now — but one of her top aides is saying it doesn’t really matter what voters in the remaining primary states do. She’ll be nominated anyway.

Ickes predicted Clinton and Obama would run “neck and neck” in the remaining states and that there would be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates.

But he said superdelegates — who “have a sense of what it takes to get elected” — would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

It’ll be interesting to see how this plays.

The Hillary Clinton campaign was initially launched using the idea of “inevitability” — that she was GOING to be the choice of primary voters and GOING to get the nomination.

Now it has shifted to a new kind of message about inevitability: that she is GOING to get the nomination no matter what what primary voters decide in the next few weeks.

And Ickes has instituted new SPIN: he insists they are “automatic” delegates, not super delegates:

“The Fourth Estate created the term ’superdelegate,’” Ickes said, though Democrats have used the term widely in the roiling debate of their allegiances and responsibilities in the increasingly competitive and high-stakes battle for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“They don’t have super powers,” Ickes said. “It’s one person, one vote. They have no more power than any other delegate. But they do have a sense of what it takes to get elected.”

Superdelegates consist of members of Congress, former presidents, governors and other party officials and insiders. The class was created in 1982 to take power away from activists and hand it to party insiders. Rarely have their votes decided the nominee.

“They are closely in touch with the issues and ideas of the jurisdiction they represent and they are as much or more in touch than delegates won or recruited by presidential campaigns,” Ickes said.

Obama currently leads Clinton by 136 in pledged delegates but trails by 95 in superdelegates, according to calculations given by both campaigns.

“Hillary will end up with more automatic delegates than Obama,” Ickes said, and the number of elections won by Obama is “irrelevant to the obligations of automatic delegates.”

You have to wonder about Ickes’ highly-touted political smarts.

It’s hard to imagine that this kind of statement will endear his candidate to wavering Democrats — or for that matter to independent voters.

Rather, it may help some voters decide not to vote for Mrs. Clinton if she gets the nomination, since it is now clear from his comments that the Clinton camp is now tossing a coin and basically saying:

“Heads (if I win primaries) I win! Tails (if I lose the primaries I will get the super-delegates and win anyway) I win!”