Analysis
| How
Super Tuesday unfolded | Clinton
booed | Video:
Obama speech | Video:
Clinton speech | McCain
leads | Pictures
Even when the dust began to settle yesterday from Super Tuesday’s Democratic
contests in 22 states between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, there was
little clarity.
The two candidates are so evenly matched in terms of their appeal, policies
and historic potential that their campaigns are grinding out a stalemate
that may not be resolved until the Democratic convention in August.
Both could claim a points victory after trading blows all through Tuesday
night. Mrs Clinton won the biggest prizes in New York, New Jersey, and
California while also going some way to answer claims about her electability
by picking up the Republican-leaning “red states” of Tennessee and Oklahoma.
Mr Obama proved the breadth of his national appeal and the strength of his
campaign organisation by triumphing — often by convincing margins — in a
swath of smaller contests as well as his home base in Illinois. He prevailed
in tight fights in Missouri and Connecticut. Mrs Clinton took Massachusetts,
where Senator Edward Kennedy had endorsed her rival.
Their differing appeals on lines of race, class and gender, in effect,
cancelled each other out. Mr Obama again secured the bulk of black, young
and higher-income liberal white voters. Mrs Clinton did well among older
women, Latinos and working-class white Democrats. At the end of the night
the two candidates had almost identical support in the number of votes cast
and delegates won.
Both sides, inevitably, claimed to have momentum on their side. Mr Obama’s
aides said their campaign was on a clear path to victory. He is raising
dramatically more money than Mrs Clinton — collecting $32 million (£16
million) in January to her $12 million. Mrs Clinton’s spokesman confirmed
yesterday that she had been forced to lend her campaign $5 million from her
family’s own fortune, built by her husband’s lucrative speaking tourrs of
his post-White House years.
Mr Obama believes the next seven contests should favour him. Four are in
states with large proportions of black voters — Louisiana, Maryland, Virgina
and Washington DC — while three more in Nebraska, Washington State and Maine
— are caucuses, in which he has excelled because of his ground
organisation.He won caucuses in Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota
on Tuesday.
David Axelrod, his chief strategist, said that Mr Obama had climbed from
behind in national and state-by-state polls, which Mrs Clinton had mostly
led until very recently. “It is a phenomenal thing when you think where we
were a month and a half ago. We were the underdog against the biggest name
in Democratic politics,” he added.
David Plouffe, Mr Obama’s campaign manager, said: “This was day to get the
upper hand in the nomination fight, and they most decidedly failed in that
regard.”
Mark Penn, the strategist for Mrs Clinton, suggested that Mr Obama’s surge in
the last week had been halted and that “momentum had turned” in the final
hours before Super Tuesday. He said that she did best in contested states.
“Where we fought and advertised, that was where we had our largest margins,”
Her campaign is setting its sights beyond the remaining contests this month
and towards Ohio and Texas on March 4, as well as Pennsylvania on April 22,
regions heavy with blue-collar and union households, or the Latino voters
who supported her so strongly in California.
The different paths that these campaigns are cutting across America is a
reflection of both the character and the beliefs of the candidates. Mr Obama
focused on smaller, often Republican states, as well as those holding
caucuses rather than primaries. He has sought to build a movement of
activists, claiming that change does not come from the top down but when the
grass roots are inspired to demand it.
Mrs Clinton concentrated her fire on the big states and mobilising a
Democratic vote. She appears more at at ease as a national candidate,
practising politics “wholesale” rather than the close-up, “retail” style of
the early voting states.
She has challenged Mr Obama to four head-to-head televised debates this month.
Her campaign said this would allow voters to see how the candidates measured
up side by side rather than relying on the rallies and big events favoured
by Mr Obama where statements went unchallenged. Mrs Clinton wants to
demonstrate that she makes an “effective case”. Aides say that Mr Obama has
been getting a free ride from an uncritical media.
The distinction between them was also apparent in speeches on Tuesday night to
their respective groups of supporters. Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama both
reprised their core messages which have increasingly been honed down to
distinct visions on how to win the presidential election for the Democrats
in November.
Addressing a rally in Manhattan that was exuberant even before the California
result, Mrs Clinton asserted her tested durability for November’s looming
contest, and said that she would not waver in the face of the kind of
tactics that smeared the war record of the 2004 Democratic nominee, John
Kerry.
“We know that the Republicans will not give up the White House without a
fight,” she said. “Let me be very clear: I will not let anyone ‘swift boat’
this country’s future. Together, we can take back America."
Mr Obama told his own boisterous rally in Chicago: “Our time has come, our
movement is real, and change is coming to America.” He professed respect and
friendship for Mrs Clinton but declared: “We owe the American people a real
choice. We have to choose between change and more of the same, we have to
choose between looking backwards and looking forwards, we have to choose
between our future and the our past.”
He suggested his rival was too polarising a figure to win the White House.
“It’s a choice between going into this election with Republicans and
independents already united against us, and going against their nominee with
a campaign that has united Americans of all parties, of all backgrounds, of
all races, of all religions, for a common purpose.”
It was significant that both candidates tried to make encroachments on the
other’s territory. Mrs Clinton adopted some of Mr Obama’s language of unity
and change, saying: “Tonight we’re hearing the voices of people across
America — people of all ages, of all races, all faiths and all walks of
life. I look forward to continuing our campaign and our debate about how to
leave this country better off for the next generation.”
Mr Penn suggested yesterday that Mr Obama had suffered on Tuesday for deciding
to run an “Establishment-orientated campaign” which had relied heavily on
endorsements from the likes of Senator Kennedy in Massachusetts and the
Governor of Arizona, Janet Napolitano, who command significant political
machines.
He claimed that Mrs Clinton’s victory in both states showed voters preferred
her “substance-orientated campaign” which has in recent days focused
strongly on issues such as health care, the economy and her credentials as a
commander-in-chief.
Mr Obama, at an airport press conference yesterday, dismissed the implication
that he was not tough enough to stand up to the Republican attack machine,
saying recent scraps with Mrs Clinton had proven “we can take a punch and
we're still standing”. Hinting that successive scandals in the 1990s could
prevent a Clinton restoration to the White House if she was the Democratic
nominee, he said: “The notion that somehow Senator Clinton is going to be
immune from attack or that there is not a whole dump truck they can’t back
up in a contest against John McCain is just not true.”
Neither side expects the battle to end soon. Democratic party rules require
delegates to be awarded proportionately in each state. Mr Penn said : “It
will be very hard to amass a large delegate lead.”
He suggested that those who wanted an old-fashioned brokered convention might
get their wish. “This is going to be a neck-and-neck contest for the
foreseeable future.” The prospect of a damaging drawn-out fight running even
up to the convention in Denver this August is beginning to alarm Democrats,
seven in ten of whom — according to exit polls on Tuesday — would be content
with either Mrs Clinton or Mr Obama as the nominee.
Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, acknowledged
that that a convention battle would be a problem. He pointed out that the
previous three divided conventions — in 1968, 1972 and 1980 — had all
resulted in the election of a Republican president.
The bloggers’ view
“A woman might have a different perspective on how to deal with our
international relationships"
Margaret Bramble, 38 (Her husband also voted Clinton: “Since I am the
one with the degree in political science, he usually listens to me")
“With Hillary in there, even if she screws up, Bill will be there"
James Sims, 34
“Obama really represents the restart of our country. I want to turn it off and
start it up again"
Josh Koppel, 33
“People voting for Obama are full of cheer. I believe he's gonna help spread
the wealth, but he's a stern dude and he's gonna make people work for the
money"
Curtis Bolden, 30
“I know he is not going to win, but his name is still on the ballot. John
Edwards had the most comprehensive healthcare plan, but people were only
concerned about his $400 haircuts"
Helen Ladoucey, 87
