Feb 18, 2008

Clinton Can't Explain Obama's Wins

Feb 18, 2008
The Clinton campaign has been busy inventing new reasons for why Barack Obama keeps winning state after state. "One of the hilarious side-effects of every Obama victory is the spin from Clinton quarters and its surrogates and supporters explaining why said victories 'don't matter,'" Markos Moulitsas blogged this week.

Either the state has a caucus, or too many black people, or too many affluent people, or too many independent voters, or too many red staters. If only the Clintons had the perfect electoral map.

If only.

If only the Clintons had a coherent explanation for why Obama has so thoroughly out-organized and out-hussled them across the country in February. After all, there was no reason why Hillary Clinton, after spending eight years in the White House and amassing a hefty war chest of money and incumbency in the Senate, couldn't have won caucus states, or red states, or states with large African-American communities. The front-runner is supposed to win these places. If Obama had lost eight states in a row, his candidacy most certainly would have been toast.

Obama has opened up a small lead in pledged delegates, 1,078 to 969 according to MSNBC, but the race is still miraculously close. Clinton may very well win Ohio and Texas and capture the nomination as the third reincarnation of the Comeback Kid.

But step back for a minute. How did Clinton even get to the point where March 4 was do or die? Exactly what happened to all those states in between? Did the tide turn when Missouri flipped into Obama's column in the wee hours of Super Tuesday? After a draw was declared that Wednesday, her campaign has been mired in a seemingly endless draught.

The situation is more dire for Clinton than her supporters would have one believe. Her candidacy is on the verge of impending collapse. It goes beyond replacing one or two campaign managers. Obama is consolidating his base and bringing in new voters, while Clinton is hanging on by a mere thread.