For the past couple of weeks, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been relying on what I call the “asterisk strategy.” Every Clinton victory is a sign of strength and long-term success, but every Obama victory doesn’t really count because it comes with an asterisk.<\/p>\n
Obama won Washington? That doesn’t count; it’s a caucus state.<\/p>\n
Obama won Nebraska? That doesn’t count, because he spent more money there.<\/p>\n
Obama won South Carolina and Louisiana? Those don’t count, because the states’ large African-American populations give him a built-in advantage.<\/p>\n
Obama won Illinois? That doesn’t count; it’s his home state.<\/p>\n
Obama won Connecticut? That doesn’t count; he fared less well among traditional Democratic constituencies.<\/p>\n
Clinton was making the case for asterisks as recently as Monday, speaking to a poli-sci class at the University of Virginia, and dismissing the value of caucuses. “If you show up at a caucus, you’re highly motivated and often times very much [fixated] on one issue or a certain ideological position.” According to one report<\/a>, “Clinton also bragged Monday that her support among voters earning less than $50,000 a year better equipped her to wage economic warfare against John McCain.”<\/p>\n Obviously, yesterday’s results in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia are harder to spin, because the asterisks don’t apply. I get the impression that the Clinton campaign, after Super Tuesday, came up with a strategy: batten down the hatches, wait for March 4, and hope the storm that blows over doesn’t do too much damage. It’s an approach that seems more than a little flawed.<\/p>\n Indeed, we’re seeing the consequences of it now. Obama has won eight contests over the course of four days and has taken a delegate lead that may ultimately prove to be insurmountable. In the meantime, Clinton’s campaign manager has left, her deputy campaign manager has left<\/a>, and two staffers from the campaign’s online team have left<\/a>. Even die-hard supporters are starting to feel antsy.<\/p>\n
\n
\nWhat I can’t quite wrap my head around is why<\/i> Clinton hasn’t done more to contest these contests. Her criticism of caucuses in general seems more than fair — indeed, I largely agree with all of her concerns — but this is the process through which Dems are going to pick a nominee. When one candidate wins a caucus state and picks up more delegates for the convention, it doesn’t much matter when the candidate who came in second says, “But I don’t like caucuses.” The preference is irrelevant.<\/p>\n