After Barack Obama’s Iowa victory — which was, oddly enough, just a month ago — there was no shortage of media speculation that the race for the Democratic nomination was effectively over. Hillary Clinton had come in third, she was poised to do poorly in New Hampshire, and she was running short on funds. “Everyone” knew the race was slipping away.
And then she won New Hampshire and Nevada, and “everyone” knew she was the frontrunner again. And then Obama cleaned her clock in South Carolina and “everyone” knew he was in the driver’s seat again. And then Clinton won California and New Jersey and “everyone” knew that she was still the odds-on favorite to win the nomination.
And now practically every factor is moving in Obama’s direction, and “everyone” knows the race may very well be over. This item in today’s Wall Street Journal is getting some attention.
Hillary Clinton’s public bet that Ohio and Texas will be the firewall that salvages her presidential hopes from immolation is shaping up to be the biggest gamble of her campaign — and perhaps the decisive one.
It was a wager that even critics say the New York senator had to make: Before last week’s near draw with Democratic rival Barack Obama in Super Tuesday’s 22 state contests, her campaign had foreseen trouble ahead for the rest of February. That rough patch is shaping up to be 10 straight defeats. Sen. Clinton needed to signal to supporters — and, more important, to donors — that there would be a place to stop the Obama momentum. […]
Yet each state offers opportunities for her rival, and both primaries are open to independent voters and even Republicans, who have supported Sen. Obama elsewhere. He arrives with momentum from his string of wins, all by wide margins, and more money for the airwave wars that began this week. In nearly every state that has voted to date, Sen. Clinton has led by double digits weeks before, only to see her leads melt by primary or caucus day.
All of this has the benefit of being true. But I feel like I’ve read this story before — in the first week in January — and it proved to be wrong.
After the irrational exuberance after Iowa, reporters seemed to learn a lesson — don’t draw too many sweeping conclusions too early. Voters have a way of surprising people, and rejecting storylines that “everyone” has already accepted.
To be sure, if I were a betting man, and was going to pick a candidate to win the nomination, my guess would be Obama. But that’s my guess right now based on the current landscape. I’ve seen the landscape shift more than once in the last few weeks, which is why the smartest move of all would be to not place any bets and wait to see what happens.
I get the sense, though, that much of the political world is feeling a little impatient right now. I’ve seen plenty of talk about what would happen in an Obama-McCain match-up, as if that phase of the campaign has already begun. There’s been some speculation about Obama’s short-list of running mates, as well.
Might I recommend taking a deep breath? Clinton has a legitimate shot in Wisconsin. She’s still leading in her “firewall” states of Texas and Ohio. She still has broad support among superdelegates, and a desire to do whatever it takes to win. Obama is giving inevitability a try — which strikes me as a good idea, given the circumstances — but Clinton isn’t about to just fade away.
Indeed, I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if, after March 4, the media does exactly what it did after New Hampshire, and write a bunch of introspective items about the echo chamber and excessively exaggerate trends. Then, the new narrative will be about the “miraculous Clinton comeback,” after the she’d been “left for dead” by the same people who’d effectively called the race.
Obviously, reality is hard to overlook here. Clinton is in a very tough spot, and time isn’t on her side. A few more headlines like the one about John Lewis, and the Obama snowball is going to look awfully big.
But we’re not there yet.