Two senior Democratic sources tell Fox that Clinton and Obama met at California Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s home in Washington, D.C this evening.

Feinstein is among Clinton’s most loyal and ardent supporters in the Senate and the locale bespeaks a joint effort by Clinton and Obama to deal with a unifying figure, Feinstein, and approach the matter with sensitivity to women voters and the all-powerful state of California, vital to Obama’s hopes for victory as John McCain still harbors hopes of competing in California.

As for details of the meeting, the campaigns released the following joint statement, “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November.”

Congressional sources tell Fox that three high-powered House Democrats leaned on Hillary Clinton to end her campaign this week, even though she was at first vague about the timeline for her departure.

The three Democrats who prodded Clinton to formulate and then announce a specific exit plan were, according to Democrats familiar with the situation, Reps. Charles Rangel of New York, Barney Frank of Massachusetts, and Norm Dicks of Washington.

All three were on a conference call Clinton conducted with about 20 House Democrats who supported her campaign.

The consensus among House Democrats was that Clinton had to decide what to do “sooner rather than later.”

On the call, Clinton declined to commit to a specific date to suspend her campaign or endorse Obama. Lawmakers agreed not to discus the conference calls with reporters, but Rangel, Frank and Dicks made separate appeals to Clinton to come up with a plan to leave the race and to begin to set it in motion.

Early Wednesday Rangel voiced displeasure with Clinton’s speech on Tuesday because it failed to acknowledge Obama’s historic achievement in capturing enough delegates to win the nomination.

Dissatisfaction with Clinton’s speech led to intensified pressure for her to withdraw so the party could begin focusing on “unity.”

And while Clinton pledged to make the moves to begin unifying the part, the of lack a specific date caused Rangel, Franks, and Dicks to step up the pressure.

Senior advisers to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama are increasingly confident the final day of the six-month chase for the Democratic nomination will produce just enough delegates for Obama to vanquish his inexhaustible rival, Hillary Clinton.

The magic hours for Obama could fall between sunset and the time he hits the stage in St. Paul for the penultimate victory party of this historic primary campaign.

Senior officials tell FOX News Obama expects to collect at least 10 new super delegate endorsements before the polls close in Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday.

The Obama camp also expects to win Montana comfortably and squeak by Clinton in South Dakota, thereby winning 17 or 18 of the 31 pledged delegates available in both states.

Obama ended Monday 41.5 delegates away from the 2,118 needed to capture the nomination.

With the endorsement Tuesday of House Majority Whip, James Clyburn of South Carolina, Obama’s magic number is already one delegate closer than the tally officially recognized by the Obama campaign.

With at least 10 new superdelegates expected to declare before the polls close in the Mountain West and the projected 17-18 gain in pledged delegates from Montana and South Dakota, Obama would be less than 15 delegates away from the nomination as he prepares to take the stage in the city, St. Paul, Minn., and in the arena where Republicans will anoint John McCain their nominee in early September.

Obama officials expect to attract endorsements from more than a dozen superdelegates as soon as the Montana and South Dakota polls close and, as such, will either be just under or just over the threshold of 2,118 delegates. Several House members have withheld their endorsement for Obama pending the end of the primaries. A handful of senators who have been leaning toward Obama may also announce their support after the polls close in what may be a coordinated burst of super delegate support just before Obama’s Tuesday speech.

“We expect to do well with superdelegates and are hopeful enough will come in tomorrow to make Senator Obama the nominee,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. “We’ve been in almost (constant) contact with the superdelegates for some time now and so we have a pretty good feel for their situation.”

Obama is planning a victory speech that will make the general election argument for change but also lavish praise on Clinton’s campaign as Obama seeks to defuse any possible friction with the New York senator. Senior Obama advisers are less sanguine about lowering the temperature with former President Bill Clinton, who complained bitterly Monday in South Dakota about what he considered soft media coverage of Obama and harsh treatment of his wife.

For now, team Obama is focusing exclusively on courting Clinton — not in terms of drafting her as a running mate — but as an ally in redirecting party activists loyal to her campaign away from her campaign and toward the general election. The Obama camp is not going to discuss running mate issues for several weeks as it wants the nation to focus exclusively on Obama’s message against McCain and as it sizes him up as the new Democratic standard bearer. Getting bogged down in speculation on running mates, they believe, would create an unwelcome and counter-productive distraction.

“Senator Clinton is such as exemplary public servant, has run such a good campaign and so dedicated to this race and the party winning, we believe she will want to help our campaign,” Burton said, echoing Sen. Obama’s complimentary statements of the past two days.

On Tuesday, Obama’s speech will – in addition to acknowledging the history of the moment and emphasizing change – will “go hard on McCain and blow a big kiss to Clinton,” said one senior adviser.

MAJOR GARRETT, FOX NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Senator Clinton, great to be with you.

SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you so much.

GARRETT: Thanks for your time. A couple of days ago you said, and I quote, “Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. There’s a pattern emerging here.”

Do you feel like you need to apologize for that?

CLINTON: Well, I was quoting from an AP article, and I certainly regret anybody putting any more meaning on it than that, because this has been an extraordinary campaign. Each of us has worked very hard. We both have nearly 17 million votes. We have attracted voters from all across our country.

And I believe that I have a broader coalition. I have won the swing states which we’re going to have to win in the fall, and I think that gives me a much stronger position to go into this nomination. But obviously we’re going to have to put together a unified Democratic Party and then try to persuade enough Americans to vote for our nominee so that we can win and take back the White House.

GARRETT: Can you understand how that phraseology might have sounded?

CLINTON: Oh, absolutely. I mean, I regret deeply that, you know, rather than my referencing what was I thought an objective source talking about how this campaign has unfolded, anybody would attribute that to me.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about electability. The Obama campaign likes to point out that swing states are also Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Colorado, states that he won. And they believe that’s a very powerful argument for his electability.

Why is it not?

CLINTON: Well, I would argue that caucuses are much less of an indicator of electability than primaries just by the very nature of the numbers of people and the broader cross-section of people who traditionally participate. So the primaries that were won by both of us I think are a better indicator.

GARRETT: Let’s go to Missouri then. He won Missouri, though narrowly.

CLINTON: Right.

GARRETT: No Democrat has ever been elected, unlike West Virginia. You can go back to 1916. But no Democrat has ever won the White House without carrying Missouri.

The Obama campaign says why doesn’t that count in the electability equation that Hillary Clinton talks so much about?

CLINTON: Well, I think it counts for both of us, because it was essentially a tie. I mean, I won 110 out of 115 counties. He won five counties which were population centers.

Democrats have lost in 2000 and 2004 because we didn’t win in rural areas. And I think that is a really strong indicator, because I believe that a Democrat will win in the cities, whoever our Democrat is. We will win in the cities because cities often have more needs, they understand that Democrats are going to do better for them than a Republican will. And certainly the contrast with Senator McCain, who is not someone who has been particularly favorable toward helping cities, will be a big help to us.

Our real electoral challenge is outside of the cities. And so look at Missouri. Take Missouri as a perfect example.

I won 100 out of 115 counties. I won in places that Democrats have to win if we’re going to be successful in the fall.

I won Arkansas, which is a state that would be great to add. I won Tennessee. I won West Virginia. I think if you look at the big states that I also won that provide the anchors for electoral map, I believe my case is stronger.

GARRETT: Let’s talk about West Virginia. Two out of 10 of those who responded in the exit polling surveys said race was important to them. Eight of 10 voted for you.

How proud are you to have the votes of people who appear to be race conscious as they select a potential nominee?

CLINTON: Well, I think the vast majority of people in West Virginia, not, you know, 80 percent of 20 percent, but the remaining very large percentage that voted, didn’t say that that had anything to do with their vote. And I think that is exactly the way it should be. It shouldn’t have anything to do with their vote.

I would hope gender has nothing to do with anyone’s vote. The fact is that I believe people voted for me in West Virginia because they need a fighter in the White House. They need somebody who is going to stand up, take on the oil companies, take on the insurance companies, take on the drug companies, not just in a campaign season, but has a history of doing that. And they need somebody who’s going to help solve their problems.

So, they really made what was a very careful consideration and determined that I am more in line with what they think they need in their next president. (more…)

The Clinton campaign is strategizing ways to persuade undecided superdelegates to back the former first lady for the Democratic presidential nomination and is laying the ground work for a public campaign to woo them to her side.

Clinton Campaign Chairman Terry McAuliffe denied any public effort to lobby undecided superdelegates is currently contemplated. But numerous sources inside the campaign and sympathetic to it told FOX News that a battle plan is being put together to use any and all possible resources to lobby superdelegates.

Among the ideas under regular discussion is to carry out public rallies, use direct mail and television spots in order to generate broader public support for undecided superdelegates to side with Clinton.

Part of the argument the Clinton campaign will use in this and every other outreach to superdelegates will be that the race is very close in terms of delegates and popular votes.

Clinton touched on this theme Tuesday night, citing the closeness of the race and the “he wins one, she wins one” nature of the campaign.

The other big selling point, also hit by Clinton tonight, is “to count all the votes.”

This is a reference to Michigan and Florida, which Clinton said shouldn’t be left out of delegate calculations, as they are now due to Democratic National Committee sanctions. Clinton said the nominee shouldn’t be chosen “by 48 states.”

After Barack Obama’s speech in San Antonio (after he lost Ohio but before he knew he lost the primary in Texas), his chief strategist David Axelrod spoke briefly to The Bourbon Room about the outcome of Super Tuesday Part II and the campaign ahead.

Here is the transcript:

First The Bourbon Room asked how Obama’s camp would deal with the perception that Clinton has slowed Obama’s momentum and fought herself back into the race:

“Well, that’s a perception that they’re spinning, but they set their own test. It’s not our delegate riff, they started the delegate riff. Their delegate riff was that “We are going to wipe out the delegate lead on March 4.” The fact is they haven’t changed their situation at all. They may have changed perceptions a little bit. We don’t know what’s happening here in Texas, we’ll see what happens in Texas, but we’re probably going to win the delegate fight here in Texas. Ultimately, this is a race for delegates. We’ve got a substantial lead. We’ve won 28 contests to their 13. We’ve won more popular votes. We’ve won in every part of the country. We’ve put together a coalition of independents, Democrats and Republicans. We’ve energized young people in a way they haven’t been in a generation. And we’ve shown the ability to put together a coaltion that is going to take on John McCain and beat John McCain and that’s why we’re doing so much better than she in so many polls against McCain. I don’t think this materially changes anything. It may extend the race, but I don’t think it’s going to change the outcome.”

The Bourbon Room then asked: “They hit you hard, are you going to hit hard back?”

Axelrod: “I think we’re willing to join the debate. If they want to define the debate in terms of the issues they’ve laid out in the past week, if they want to throw the kitchen sink, they’re going to engender a response. If they want to have a discussion about ethics, then we’ll have a discussion about ethics. If they want to have a discussion about who is prepared to be commander in chief, then we’re going to ask the hard questions about the decisions that’s she’s made. If she wants to say she’s going to be a steward of the economy, and talk about her accomplishments in public life, then we’re going to talk about that. It isn’t going to be a one-way debate. “

It will be very interesting to see how far Obama’s campaign goes with its response/reaction to Clinton now. If Axelrod follows through on discussing Clinton’s ethics, commander-in-chief qualifications and capability to run the economy in the context of hard, negative ads against Clinton, the campaign will cross yet another Rubicon. Hillary Clinton crossed one with the “3 a.m.” ad and the risk paid off. The Clinton camp knew there could be a backlash among Democrats who resent using terror fears to make a political point. The gamble paid off as exit polling data shows the “3 a.m.” ad helped Clinton reverse the slide and eke out a victory in Texas. Obama would run the risk, if he ran negative ads, of abandoning his “new brand of politics,” but it might also prove his grit and determination to win — something Democrats in and out of the trenches now question.

We’ll see if Axelrod was venting or plotting. And we’ll see soon enough.

For those of you Bourbon Room loyalists, you well remember — or may have been trying to forget — my near-rhapsodic take on the Los Angeles debate, the first Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama tilt of the campaign.

No need to rhapsodize tonight. Instead of my thoughts, tonight I will pose a series of questions that may help us decide what mattered most and how the debate did or did not change the arc of this fascinating and historic Democratic pursuit of the presidency.

Note: Some questions I will answer for you. Have no fear, the answers will lead to other questions The Bourbon Room promises not to answer.

Here we go.

1. What does camp Clinton consider THE most important moment of the debate?

The lengthy and “passionate” exchange over universal health care?

No.

The debate over whether or not to impose a five-year moratorium on adjustable rate mortgages, as Clinton proposes and Obama opposes?

No.

The debate over how Clinton would restore “fiscal discipline” by ending Bush tax breaks for the wealthy and ending the Iraq war to invest in new infrastructure and start new “clean green jobs”?

No.

The answer came from Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson in the form of an e-mail sent to reporters at 9:57 p.m. EST, mere moments after the debate ended. The full contents of the Wolfson e-mail are reprinted here:

“What we saw in the final moments in that debate is why Hillary Clinton is the next president of the United States. Her strength, her experience, her compassion. She’s tested and ready. It was the moment she retook the reins of this race and showed women and men why she is the best choice.”

Question: Do you agree and do you see anything relevant at all in the near-instantaneous framing of the “moment” by Sen. Clinton’s campaign?

Question: Does the following e-mail sent to reporters at 10:15 p.m. EST by Bill Burton, national spokesman for Barack Obama’s campaign, carry any weight with you?

“Clinton tonight: You know, whatever happens, we’re going to be fine. You know, we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we’ll be able to say the same thing about the American people. And that’s what this election should be about.”

The Burton e-mail then includes this quote from John Edwards: “What’s not at stake are any of us. All of us are going to be just fine no matter what happens in this election. But what’s at stake is whether America is going to be fine.” The quote comes from a Democratic candidate debate on Dec. 13, 2007.

UPDATE from the Obama campaign at 11:35 p.m. EST:

Burton sent this e-mail: Yet another line lifted for what was her “best moment.”

Clinton tonight: “You know, the hits I’ve taken in life are nothing compared to what goes on every single day in the lives of people across our country. And I resolved at a very young age that I’d been blessed and that I was called upon by my faith and by my upbringing to do what I could to give others the same opportunities and blessings that I took for granted. That’s what gets me up in the morning. That’s what motivates me in this campaign.”

President Clinton: “When the history of this campaign is written, they may say, well, Bill Clinton took a lot of hits in this campaign. The hits that I took in this election are nothing compared to the hits that people in this state and country are taking every day of their lives under this administration (Aug. 14, 2000).

Question: Does this second Obama e-mail on the Clinton “moment” matter to you or suggest anything to you about the degree of concern camp Obama has about the “moment”?

Which leads to a related question. Did you consider Clinton’s line against Obama on the question of lifting lines (or trading them) from/with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick memorable? To jog your memory Clinton said: “That’s not change you can believe in, that’s change you can Xerox.”

Next question. Do you remember Clinton saying more frequently she agreed with Obama or Obama saying more frequently that he agreed with Clinton? Your answer, based on your recollection of the debate is more important than the actual answer (which, to be honest, The Bourbon Room doesn’t have).

The related question is this: Generally, considering the current context of the race and Obama’s 11 straight victories (Obama won the Democrats Abroad primary today), does Clinton agreement with Obama on issues do more for Obama than his agreement with her on issues?

Question: Does it matter to you that in a 2003 questionnaire, Obama said he favored normalizing relations with Cuba (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html), but tonight said he would not normalize relations with Cuba unless it pursues human rights and democratic reforms.

Question: Do you think the gap between Clinton and Obama narrowed or expanded on whether the next president should negotiate directly with U.S. enemies such Cuba, Iran and North Korea?

Question: Can you remember a significant difference that emerged in nearly 10 minutes of debate over how to revive the U.S. economy?

Question: Do you understand the difference between Clinton and Obama on the pursuit of universal health care coverage? Does it strike you as an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin difference or a crucial philosophical divide?

Question: Do you agree or disagree with Obama’s assertion the Iraq troop surge represents a “tactical victory” that is hopelessly ensnared in major “strategic blunder”?

Question: Do you believe Obama’s surge answer, if he’s the Democratic nominee, will be viewed as one of strength in the inevitable Iraq debates with Sen. John McCain?

Question: Which is the logical sequence in a republic as politically complex as ours: change then solutions, or solutions then change?

Question: Did Obama look to you more or less presidential than in the previous 18 debates?

Question: Did you think Clinton faced the hardest debate of this campaign in light of her poor post-Super Tuesday performances and, as such, deserves higher marks for pluck, poise and determination?

Question: Did either Obama or Clinton answer the final “crisis” question and does that matter to you?

The answers are yours. The election is yours, especially in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont on March 4 (remember Texans, early voting is occurring NOW).

The Clinton campaign denied Tuesday it would make any effort to coax pledged Barack Obama delegates to switch to Hillary Clinton at the Democratic National Convention.

“We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama. We think Sen. Obama’s campaign owes you all a clear answer as to whether they will pursue our pledged delegates.”

The Clinton camp is sensitive to this topic because it wants to avoid any appearance of pursuing a win-at-all-costs strategy, something the Obama camp has accused it of as debate has intensified over the role superdelegates should play in the pitched nomination fight.

Clinton’s camp argues the 795 superdelegates should support the candidate they believe would be the best nominee, not necessarily the candidate who has won the most contests, votes or pledged delegates. The Obama camp believes just the opposite and has said Clinton can’t hope to narrow the 136-delegate lead it says it has amassed in pledged delegates.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton told FOX News, “Of course we won’t do that.”

Burton said the real question is why the Clinton camp “didn’t deny” they had a pledged delegate strategy.

The Politico.com reported Tuesday that an unnamed senior Clinton official said the campaign would try to persuade pledged delegates committed to Obama to switch to Clinton. Under party rules, pledged delegates – despite their title – can change their allegiance even before the first balllot is cast.

Generally, pledged delegates stick with the candidate they are pledged to as results are tallied in primaries and caucuses.

Any attempt to fight over pledged delegates could generate micro-political wars on the convention floor and introduce a degree of chaos not seen in party conventions in a generation.

In a conference call today, Harold Ickes, party operative for 40 years and former White House deputy chief to President Clinton, boldly predicted Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and do so soon after the last party primary on June 7 in Puerto Rico.

“We’re going to win this nomination,” Ickes said. “You’re not going to see this go to the convention floor.”

Ickes predicted Clinton and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will run “neck-and-neck” in the 18 remaining state and territorial primaries and caucuses and that there will be a “minuscule amount of difference” between the two in pledged delegates and that so-called Super Delegates will determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton.

Ickes denounced the term Super Delegates and said the Clinton camp henceforth will refer to them as “automatic delegates.”

“The Fourth Estate created the term Super Delegate,” Ickes said, even though Democrats have used the Super Delegate term widely in the roiling debate of their allegiances and responsibilities in the increasingly competitive and high-stakes battle for Democratic presidential nomination. “They don’t have super powers,” Ickes said of the Super Delegates. “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.”

He said Super Delegates must “exercise their best judgment” about who can win the White House.

“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.”

In essence, Ickes argued the party 795 Super Delegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman was stripped of his Super Delegate status recently), were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates won through elections in either primaries or caucuses.

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

Ickes said Super Delegates were created to augment the elections process and those delegates are duty-bound by rule and precedent to weigh all considerations – not just votes taken in primaries or caucuses before rendering a judgment.

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

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

Ickes said he was “too dim of mind” to understand how some might wonder if the Clinton campaign might lure Super Delegates with promises of political favors. “I don’t even understand what that is referring to,” Ickes said, declining to guarantee the campaign will use no promises of tangible benefits to Super Delegates to win them to Clinton’s campaign.

Ickes also quoted top Obama adviser David Axelrod as saying Super Delegates “should vote for what’s best for party and country.”

Axelrod meant Super Delegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses, but the Clinton campaign interprets it to mean exercise broader judgment linked to larger political aims – specifically choosing Clinton over Obama as the more battle-hardened Democrat capable of winning in November.

“Deciding who you should support, these are not easy judgments. The question is who can make a good and possibly great president. This is a political process.”

Before I begin, please let me ask a favor. And the request comes in the form of a demand, maybe even an order.

Take a moment to ponder and savor the majestic historical break-through this debate represents. Longer. Longer. Let it soak in. Just take a moment longer.

OK.

Now, ask yourself this question: when you first became politically aware did you ever imagine a presidential debate of this magnitude and importance involving a woman and an African-American man?

I was born in 1962 and can tell you I first became politically aware when Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated. I didn’t know what it all meant, but I knew it was serious and sad. Like everyone, I was afraid our country had been changed forever and for the worse. I can’t help tonight but think back to the vague sense of dread I had about politics then and reflect tonight so many years later on the true nature of persistence and possibility.

I’ve watched politics as a journalist, I have come to understand the power of symbols and how symbols often obscure agendas. But sometimes symbols shatter old notions, accepted truths, and calcified conventions.

Tonight’s debate — whether you are a liberal, a conservative, or an independent — stands as a landmark in a nation that justifiably commands the attention and fascination of the world.

With Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama as the two remaining Democratic candidates for the presidency, the world sees the embodiment of core American traits of freedom, tolerance, diversity, grit and, yes, audacity.

This is not an endorsement of either candidate. It’s an acknowledgment that their rise to dominance in the Democratic Party breaks the mold in ways few could have imagined as recently as two years ago. When America, the most imaginative nation on Earth, surprises itself we must catch our breath, marvel at ourselves and indulge in a small blush of pride.

I can tell you the reason I am rhapsodizing about this moment. Here in the press room outside the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, many in press row are bored. On a typical debate scale, this encounter is not an edge-of-your-seat affair. The debate is certainly calmer and more substantive than the Myrtle Beach knife fight. That’s to be expected, because politicians are normatively cautious and any two politicians taking part in something THAT’S NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE are even more prone to proceed with care.

And so Clinton and Obama did.

And yet, the debate was not without its high points.

I won’t grade the debate or the performances because tonight the larger issue is the event itself and what it represents. History will record the tableau, not the transcript.

Clinton and Obama dissected each other’s health care plans carefully and fairly. Clinton knows, because she believes in it and the polls reflect it, that pushing hard for universal health care is the way to appeal bedrock Democratic values and voters. When she said anything less will be “picked apart” she not only issued a warning but rallied party foot-soldiers who don’t want to fight for a concept, but an absolute.

This is not to say that Obama lost the health care debate. The voters will decide which approach is better. Whn Obama argues the first priority is to lower costs, he raises an important but politically less-resonant point. His formula takes longer to explain and exposes him to criticism that his plan is built on a fragile foundation where an estimated 15 million adults would still lack health insurance coverage. Based on conversations I’ve had with voters, however, it seems that if Obama loses ground on substance he makes it up on style. Obama voters and those on the fence tend to believe that a larger political coalition is required before universal health care or something close to it can be achieved. They also tend to believe Obama can create that coalition and Clinton cannot.

On Iraq, it’s hard for The Bourbon Room to detect a tectonic shift tonight (hey, I was born in San Diego and can indulge in one earthquake metaphor without penalty). Most Democratic voters understand Clinton and Obama will end the Iraq war more rapidly than any Republican nominee, especially if the nominee is, as appears more and more likely, Arizona Sen. John McCain. Obama supporters were drawn to him first because he opposed the war from the start. When Clinton declined again to say her vote for the Iraq war authorization was a “mistake” she re-enforced why many Obama supporters are where they are. In Super Tuesday states where some voters may be tuning into the campaign for the first time, this could reintroduce the central weakness in Clinton’s “experience” argument. Clinton strategists, however, believe she’s already lost all the votes she’s going to lose on this issue.

On the economy, differences were substantive but not remotely combative. Obama could have used his stump speech lines about Clinton’s original stimulus plan failing to demand tax rebates or credits. Clinton could have said she was warning about a recession long before Obama and put together the first substantive stimulus plan of any major candidate. Both left that ammunition under the table.

On immigration, the most important point is that both were far more willing to talk freely about comprehensive solutions. The reason? The rise of McCain. On driver’s licenses, the differences were gently highlighted and both scored a key point — Obama that Clinton flip-flopped; Clinton that a week after the Philadelphia debate Obama couldn’t authoritatively state his position. More important was how they enthusiastically spoke of a comprehensive solution and how readily they condemned the “anti-amnesty” politics that killed immigration reform (and nearly McCain’s candidacy) earlier this year. The change in tone and temperament matches McCain’s own improbable comeback. Clinton and Obama have begun to conclude that the immigration monster either will die because will be the GOP nominee or that it will be relegated to angry third-party splinter movement (a plus for the Democrats either way).

On the running-mate issue, both turned it away easily and for good reason. At the end of this campaign Clinton and Obama will stand as enormous figures — not only in their party but in American political history. If Clinton prevails, she will seek a vice president with complementary skills, temperament and, most importantly, a keen understanding of the lesser role the vice president must play in her White House. The same is true of Obama.

Why?

Because if either is elected president, all of the old measurements will disappear. Every move Clinton or Obama makes will be historic. The focus on their presidencies will be, if possible, even more intense, personal and urgent. Under these circumstances, the centrality of the office will require a vice president eager to accept a secondary role in a new march of history. Any whiff of competition or hidden agenda will not only rankle the president, the president’s senior staff and cabinet, but the party hierarchy and the rank-and-file. It’s The Bourbon Room’s hunch that a large swath of the public will live vicariously through a Clinton or Obama presidency. Hopes will be high. The stakes will be high. The next vice president must be devoted as perhaps no vice president has been before to the task of making history work for the new president and the many things he or she will represent. Also, an Obama and Clinton presidency will also require massive legislative support on Capitol Hill. That will require skills in the cloakroom and the ability to hit the road and rally the public on behalf of the new president’s agenda. For this reason, a president Clinton will need a Senator Obama far more than a Vice President Obama. And a President Obama will need a Senator Clinton far more than a Vice President Clinton.

Lastly, for those who wonder if Obama or Clinton would need each other to defeat the Republican nominee (probably McCain), I can only say that most top Democratic strategists (those in both campaigns and those who remain neutral) tell me because Clinton and Obama break the mold, each will win or lose ENTIRELY on their own merits. The vice presidential pick, these strategists agree, will matter even less than before — which is next to not at all.