Noam comes to the defense of the aforementioned S with the fair point

that Hillary tends to do better when voters can sympathize with her, which happens when she's losing, as opposed to when she's "arrogant and unbearable," which often happens when she wins.

I agree. But I don't know how Hillary could run a successful campaign based on that dynamic. While Noam faults Hillary for going even more negative on Obama in the wake of Wisconsin, I don't think she has any other choice at this point. I suppose she could fare better in Ohio or Texas if she played up the "poor me" angle (a la New Hampshire). But then what happens if she wins Ohio and Texas? She becomes "arrogant and unbearable" again and loses in Pennsylvania. It's a vicious--and self-defeating cycle--she's caught in.

In other words, Hillary's greatest asset at this point--the fact that she's capable of turning out sympathy voters--is totally contingent on her losing contests. And that's no way to win the nomination.

--Jason Zengerle