Remember, like, a thousand news cycles ago, when New Hampshire was the great Clinton firewall against which the other candidates would be ground to a fine powder and imbibed in the cocktail of inevitability?
Remember how that turned out?
Some news from waaaay back in December:
If Clinton loses Iowa, her 'Plan B'
Clinton readies New Hampshire 'firewall' to slow Obama post-Iowa
Annnd the finals:
Stunner in N.H.: Clinton defeats Obama
Clinton fights back to take New Hampshire
Etc.
Remember how Clinton was supposed to put the nomination to bed on Super Tuesday?
The media narrative was more-or-less the same.** "Clinton leads in national polls". "Obama struggles to gain momentum". "Can South Carolina be replicated?"
(**Henceforth these headlines are totally fabricated.)
Suddenly..."All eyes on California; Obama makes gains on Clinton". "Tsunami Tuesday afoot; race tighter than ever."
And then..."Results a wash: nothing clarified after Super Tuesday". "Obama, Clinton trade victories on Super Tuesday--party looks to convention"
Nevermind that Obama actually led the pledged delegate count, won more states and by dreadful margins. Nevermind that Obama was supposed to be toast. It's a wash! It's a big f-ing mystery! On to brokered, democracy crushing convention! Is that a tear in Howard Dean's eye?
No one needs a refresher on February. It's that clear camp Obama has the big O-Mentum (I feel like that should be a chewing gum...). Maine was Clinton's best shot at a win, and...not so much. She'll have another go come Wisconsin, but if today goes as we all anticipate and nothing insanecrazy happens in the meantime, I think we can take it. We (as I lapse into the first-person-plural) are already on the air there, for one. And a recent (last night) Clinton criticism of Obama reads like a comment from the internets, sans the bad spelling and profanity. I have no idea how that sort of thing will play if she keeps it up, but to someone who has been following the race...it strikes me as a desperate maneuver. She's on the offensive/defensive, not talking about the issues, and she knows this is false, anyway.
"You never hear the specifics," Clinton said. "It's all this kind of abstract, general talk about how we all need to get along."
Source: politico. For some specifics from Obama, see the parallel interview with Obama.
The new firewall is supposed to be March 4: Ohio and Texas, mainly, with the Vermont and Rhode Island contests more in the (?) and (who cares) categories (sorry, fellow-former-New Englanders...you've been marginalized by big honkin' population monsters). But it's already crumbling. Ohio is sort-of perfectly magically middly-American, flapping about in the wind like some pollster's dream personified in a paper-bag of a state. (It's even kinda shaped like a bag...sorry, Ohio, I get caught up prosifying sometimes...) I think it just might swing with the mo. And Texas...well, Ron Paul's campaign appears to be collapsing, because the dear little thing has a congressional seat to keep, which will help with the college vote. Apparently (I wouldn't know, being a native-chowder-muncher-transplant-to-tobacco-kingdom) Charlie Gonzalez is some kind of a big deal down there. And, apparently, not all Latinos are the same (who knew?). (In fact, not all Latinos belonging to particular sub-groups of Latinos are the same, but oh, I digress). I feel, in my Chertoffian gut, that Texas is Obama friendly territory.
And there will be polls. Polls by the bucketfull. Polls and punditry and a new narrative: "Can Obama seal the deal?"
I've been hearing a lot of "Obama needs to win Texas OR Ohio" and "Obama only needs to keep it close". I disagree. Obama needs to win them BOTH, or...guess who's the comeback kid, v.2.1? It's all about the narrative, and the new narrative is going to be "Clinton struggling, Obama working to close the deal in Ohio and Texas".
And IF, IF we win Ohio and Texas, there looms another population-monster on the horizon...granted, about seven weeks and a media millennium later on the calendar. Pennsylvania. If there's a real firewall lurking out there, it's PA. Clinton just has to make it, however bruised and broken, to Pennsylvania, claim a victory, however narrow, and she's back in the game, with a media blitz and a host of Tuesdays in May and June laid before her.
The nomination is STILL Clinton's to lose. It has felt like we are, after months of uphill struggle, finally cresting the mountaintop. I think we've merely reached a plateau, a bit of friendly territory, a time to catch our breath, regroup, and refocus our efforts.
A reminder of the efforts that have gotten us where we are today:
--50 state strategy! Leave no one behind! Vermont, Rhode Island, we love you and we're coming for you, too (yes, just like the blob...)! Thank you, Virgin Islands! Your three delegates are much appreciated!
--Fundraising, fundraising, fundraising. Today is Lincoln's birthday. Have you reflected on the meaning of his Presidency...and given a multiple of $5.01?
--The movement. We are large, we contain multitudes, and in general we are awesome. We represent something greater than a candidate, grater than an election. Sometimes we are not awesome. Sometimes we do not reflect the values we endeavor to espouse. Sometimes we are nasty bitey little Clinton-hating sharks. We should work on that, people.
My point: there is a lurking, ready and regurgitate-able narrative out there. It is part and parcel of the efforts to write-off our wins, and ignore the ground we've gained in states where we once lagged by 20 or 30 points. To beat the narrative, we can't win one of two state on March 4. We can't just narrow the gap. We have to win BOTH states. And Rhode Island. And Vermont. (And Mississippi. And Wyoming. And Wisconsin. And Hawaii. Dean scream) And we have to start working on Pennsylvania.
Buy your tickets to the inauguration later. Work now.