Coming out of Mississippi's primary in mid-March, Democrats faced a long, dreary dry spell before the next contest: Pennsylvania's, which took place yesterday.
Six weeks and 17 million dollars later, Clinton's respectable - but not overwhelming - 10-point win, 55 percent to 45 percent, has given each campaign something to brag about as they try to spin yesterday's results for their side.
Obama's take on the Pennsylvania primary will be simple: Six weeks ago, he was 20 points down in a state tailor-made for the Clinton campaign. Pennsylvania has a disproportional number of white voters, Catholics, union voters and working-class voters, and it is second only to Florida in terms of senior citizens. All of these groups are solid Clinton demographics, and a state so full of natural Clinton voters should have handed her a huge victory.
Instead, the Obama campaign will pitch, he went to her turf, challenged her on her territory and battled her down to a narrow win. Considering the wide gap he was facing and the terrible news cycles he's seen over the past six weeks (Reverend Wright, Bittergate, the ABC "Beat up on Obama" debate), Obama should be commended for pulling so close to his opponent. Just before the polls opened, the Obama camp released the following memo trying to set the expectations for the race:
"Pennsylvania is considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and by rights she should win big. She has family roots in the state, she has the support of the Democratic establishment - including Governor Rendell's extensive network - and former President Clinton is fondly remembered.
Clinton has been leading by large margins in Pennsylvania. In the weeks leading up to the primary, she led by as much as 25 points. They were so confident that their own Pennsylvania spokesman said Clinton would be "unbeatable" in Pennsylvania - regardless of spending by her opponent..."
The Clinton camp's spin is pretty basic too, and it goes something like this: "Barack, you spent almost $12 million in Pennsylvania over the past 6 weeks, three times the amount we've spent. You've been called the frontrunner for even longer than that. You've gotten adoring media coverage wherever you went, and you still can't win in the state you've gotten to work over for six weeks? What is keeping voters from embracing you? Why do they choose to hold back? And if average voters are wary of you, shouldn't the uncommitted superdelegates be as well?"
Like most cases, the truth lies somewhere in the middle of the two sides' portrayals of reality. Yes, Pennsylvania is full of natural Clinton voters, and yes, Obama had to fight his way out of a 20-point hole. But still, as Jake Tapper puts it, "What's so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner - flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings - should be able to win a blue state primary?"
Obama's middling loss yesterday represents an impressive ability to overcome some major obstacles in his path. But the fact remains that those obstacles shouldn't be in the way of such a clear frontrunner, and the frontrunner should be able to clear them stronger than Obama has.
So ultimately, for all the time, money and energy spent in Pennsylvania, the race goes on much as it has before. Obama is in front, but some little voice in the back of voters' heads remains, preventing them from fully embracing him. Look now for Indiana and North Carolina, on May 6, to hopefully break the Democratic deadlock the party now faces.
Michael Sherry is a junior majoring in political science. He can be reached at Michael.Sherry@tufts.edu.
