She's risen from the dead, but is the stake yet aiming? While The NYT says she scared up the PA votes with a sad display of negativity, Dick Morris has more heartening words.
Morris, writing this morning, makes a good point about the composition of PA voters:
Clinton won Pennsylvania for two key reasons: Only Democrats could vote in the primary, and the Keystone State electorate is dominated by the elderly, who are staunchly for Clinton.
Despite her claims of electability, Hillary has never done well among independent voters. And Obama usually loses the Democrats. Pennsylvania's closed-primary rules gave her a key advantage.
And coming up next, he adds, is a different story:
But don't expect the open primaries of Indiana and North Carolina to behave like Pennsylvania's geriatrics. Both states are younger, especially North Carolina, and independents can vote in each primary. (North Carolina is where a lot of the young people who fled Pennsylvania winters and job losses ended up).
Over the next two weeks, we'll be treated to much hoopla about how the Democratic race is once again up for grabs. Then, on May 5, Hillary's hopes will be dashed once more.
And then? After the votes are counted in all the primaries, look for the Gang of Four - Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and John Edwards - to join together and issue a challenge to the superdelegates: Make up your minds.
But consider that a New York Times editorial painted Clinton's PA success with a different brush - that she won handily thanks in large measure to heavy-handed punches and fear-inducing ads.
So I come to wonder: was her win more about the demographics Morris points to or was it about her famous brand of negativity? Would she need both to win Indiana as she did in Ohio and PA or would negativity alone be enough?
And will Obama HAVE to go even more negative himself in order to beat her back? God, I hope not, but I want him to win. Oy!