Jeanne Cummings makes a comparison of Senator Clinton's campaign to the campaign of Rudy Giuliani today.
Just as the former New York mayor pinned his hopes on a late Florida victory to sling-shot him into front-runner status among Republican candidates, the New York senator is banking on wins in Ohio and Texas next month to revive her campaign after a February string of back-to-back-to-back losses.
It’s a high-risk play for the once undisputed Democratic front-runner. It also may be the only maneuver she has left after rival Barack Obama managed to effectively counter her planned Super Tuesday knock-out punch.
But, where a lot of people are analyzing the similarities of these two campaigns, I would like to point out a few very distinct differences. While Giuliani's campaign strategy was at best out of touch and at worst sheer ignorance, there were a few factors that made a dedicated run in Florida seem worthwhile. Follow me after the fold.
First, Florida was a winner take all state. So obviously Rudy felt that winning here would make a substantial impact on the Republican race, and in fact it had, but just not for him. Texas, on the other hand, is a proportional state, just like every other state for the Democratic Party, so if Hillary is looking to make steep inroads in pledged delegates here, it just is not going to happen.
Second, the Republican field was very weak. Nobody had decisively won a plurality of states prior to Florida, and Rudy had been running his campaign on name recognition and 911 for nearly a year. The writing on the wall in Texas and Ohio is that there is not Hillary and a bunch of tired candidates running tired campaigns. On the contrary, there is Hillary and ONE very strong candidate who has momentum. Unlike Giuliani, who was banking on votes being dispersed amongst the weak field, as Hillary loses votes, they only can really go in one other direction.
So Hillary may be circling the wagon train in Texas, but it's not going to stop Obama from barreling right through.