Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers increasingly believe that, after a series of losses, she has been boxed into a must-win position in the Ohio and Texas primaries on March 4, and she has begun reassuring anxious donors and superdelegates that the nomination is not slipping away from her, aides said on Monday.
Mrs. Clinton held a buck-up-the-troops conference call on Monday with donors, superdelegates and other supporters; several said afterward that she had sounded tired and a little down, but determined about Ohio and Texas.
They also said that they had not been especially soothed, and that they believed she might be on a losing streak that could jeopardize her competitiveness in those states.
"She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she’s out," said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment. "The campaign is starting to come to terms with that." Campaign advisers, also speaking privately in order to speak plainly, confirmed this view.
Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama’s momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend.
There are at least two stories here. First, there's the desire to get down to the business of running against the Republicans. As I read the article, I thought back to another NYT article, from last week, where Howard Dean was quoted as saying he thought we would have a nominee in March or April. As I previously explained, mathematically it's highly unlikely we will have a nominee before the convention. Clinton would probably have to drop out immediately after March 4th in order for Obama to collect 2,025 pledged delegates. But if Obama does sweep tomorrow's contests, and next Tuesday wins Hawaii as expected and holds off Clinton Wisconsin, then it's not inconceivable that the pressure on Clinton to drop out will become tremendous if she doesn't win both Texas and Ohio.
Even if one of the candidates doesn't have the full number of pledged delegates to close the deal before the convention, it's possible that Democrats could decide on a de facto presumptive nominee. Most of the campaign infrastructure—officially through the various party organs like the DNC and the state parties—as well as the unofficial operations like the 527's, will remain inoperable until we have a nominee. We'll be able to muster up some attacks on McCain (assuming they ever finish counting the ballots in Washington and he does end up their nominee). But coordinated campaigns, the DNC campaign operation and the flow of money from mega-donors and institutional players like organized labor all await a presumptive nominee.
I take the willingness of these superdelegates to speak but not be named as indicative of something many of us have thought for some time about Clinton's establishment support: it's much more shallow than many realized. Certainly there are many, many supporters and allies of Hillary Clinton who are rabid in their devotion to her. Clinton has a reputation of steely ruthlessness toward those who cross her. What gets less attention is her reputation of intense loyalty to those whom she believes have been loyal and helpful to her. One can argue that it's self-serving, but the line between sincere and self-serving in politics is often hard to discern.
However, many of Clinton's early endorsements appeared to be self-serving on the part of the endorsee. I never accepted the inevitability of Clinton's nomination, but many did, and those who endorsed Clinton early must include many who felt that they helped themselves more by being on board early with the eventual nominee. Their motivations for endorsing her were shallow, and hence they are not strongly committed to staying with her if she doesn't appear likely to get the nomination.
It's too early, however, to be talking of the Clinton campaign in the past-tense. She could win both Texas and Ohio. My guess is if the vote was held today, she'd win both comfortably. But the pattern through most of the contests has been Clinton losing huge leads the closer it is to the election, and either winning with more modest wins that the polls suggested some weeks out, or seeing her lead vanish and Obama taking the state. If he does manage to sweep the contests tomorrow and nest Tuesday, he will have two weeks to concentrate almost exclusively on the March 4th states (which also include Vermont and Rhode Island). This will be the real test of whether more time in front of the voters gives Obama enough power to overcome Clinton's relative strength with Latinos and working-class White voters.
If Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, she can legitimately claim to still be a strong, viable candidate (provided she can avoid going broke). If she loses one or both states, look for tremendous pressure for her to concede the nomination to Obama.
[ht to dmsilev]