The song remains the same
SEVEN WEEKS and tens of millions of dollars after the last big primaries, yesterday's supposedly pivotal contest in Pennsylvania left the Democratic nominating battle in the same wearisome stalemate. Last night, Senator Hillary Clinton beat Senator Barack Obama, apparently by a respectable margin. But Obama still has what appears to be an insurmountable lead in elected delegates. And Clinton has offered no compelling reason why the party luminaries known as superdelegates should ignore that lead and choose her instead.
The dynamics of the race have not changed since March 4, when Clinton won the Ohio primary, and the popular vote - though not the scramble for delegates - in Texas. Yet the Pennsylvania campaign left both contenders bruised. Clinton lost credibility by spinning a tall tale about coming under sniper fire in Bosnia; Obama suffered for the ravings of his pastor and for his own patronizing comments about voters who cling to religion and guns out of economic desperation. Maybe these dustups will turn dirty laundry into old news come December; more likely, they're a boon for presumptive Republican nominee John McCain.
Obama, whom this page endorsed in the Democratic primaries, has accomplished the rare feat of energizing new voters, and yesterday he turned out his coalition of young people, educated professionals, and African-Americans. (In Pennsylvania's closed primary, Obama could not get the votes of independents and dissident Republicans who boosted his margins in other states.) But even after outspending Clinton in Pennsylvania, he has yet to close the deal with seniors and white, working-class voters - two key Democratic constituencies.
Despite Obama's weaknesses, the New York senator has even more explaining to do. She entered the race as a prohibitive favorite, and once enjoyed a huge advantage in money and organization. But she had no plan for the campaign beyond Super Tuesday on Feb. 5 - an oversight that is no sign of wise decision-making.
So what now? The eventual Democratic nominee will need to make a case for how active government also helps more economically vibrant regions, and how industries fueled by brainpower grow best in an open, tolerant society. During the long slog in Pennsylvania, both candidates concentrated on the pains of the Rust Belt and backed further into reflexive anti-trade rhetoric. If nothing else, Pennsylvania pointed out that Clinton and Obama aren't speaking to the same groups of voters. To win in November, the eventual nominee will have to find a way to motivate them all. 