Campaigning in Pennsylvania these last few weeks, Hillary Clinton has found her metaphor. Inspired by the state where Sylvester Stallone whaled on meat carcasses and wheezed his way up improbably large staircases, Clinton has taken to comparing herself to the Keystone State's archetypal underdog. "Let me tell you something," she'd say to her audiences. "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit."
Give Clinton her due: She doesn't quit. She's behind in delegates, in money, in votes, and in party goodwill, but she fights on. Last night, she took Pennsylvania, winning the state by about 9 points in a brutal, bruising primary that included everything from radical black pastors to arguments over sniper fire in Bosnia. And though her initial, 20-point lead was cut in half, she still overwhelmed a formidable candidate who vastly outspent her.
But to what end? Today, like yesterday, she is behind in pledged delegates, behind in the popular vote, and behind in money. Obama weathered the videos of Jeremiah Wright, undoubtedly the greatest threat his campaign has faced to date, and still came back to substantially cut Clinton's lead. (The five polls completed right before the Wright videos hit showed Obama down by an average of 15 points.) The barrage of potentially lethal attacks, revelations, and, let's be honest, gaffes, in Pennsylvania ended up proving less about Obama's weakness than his resilience.
Some laughed when Clinton compared herself to Rocky: She is, after all, the anointed leader of the most powerful family and political organization in Democratic politics. But the analogy appears more apt than she knew. Rocky, after all, did not beat Apollo Creed, not in that movie. Rather, at the end of his match, when he slurred "I did it!" to Adrian, he was exulting in having gone the full 15 rounds before he lost. This looks to be Clinton's strategy as well. Behind on points, she can only fight to hang on. These days, it's Clinton, more than Obama, who's reliant on the "politics of hope" -- hoping that she'll land a lucky punch, or her opponent will suffer an unexpected disqualification, or possibly be brained by an improperly secured spotlight tumbling from the arena roof. These, however, are not factors within her control. They cannot be willed into being by a disciplined campaign or a retooled message. And so Clinton must hang on, ensuring that she's positioned to take advantage of any gifts providence might see fit to send her way.
Many of Obama's partisans, for their part, see something intrinsically illegitimate in this strategy. But Clinton's continued presence is not, as they'd have it, the sole product of a self-absorbed, almost pathological tenaciousness. Rather, Obama has failed to land the knockout blow. He has not overwhelmed her in any of the psychologically critical battleground states -- not in Pennsylvania, not in Ohio, and not in Texas. Insofar as Clinton's argument is that Obama is weak among the white ethnics who populate the critical Midwestern swing states, he has not proven capable of delivering the decisive electoral rejoinder that would transform her losing but close candidacy into a mere vanity project that the superdelegates would have every right and reason to abandon. Viewed one way, Rocky made it 15 rounds because he was determined. Viewed another, he got there because Creed never laid him out.
There is nothing wrong, of course, with winning on points. But it is an exhausting, brutal, and dangerous way to finish a match. It is, in short, the worst way for Obama to win. It is the path that will leave the media and the voters with the most questions as to his viability in the general election. This is particularly true in light of the increasingly vicious campaign Clinton is running, where every word and deed is meant to convey why Obama either can't win (his preacher, his weakness among downscale whites) or why he shouldn't (elitism, "just words," inexperience).
Ask yourself, by contrast, to define the exact nature of Obama's argument against Clinton. Is it that she's part of the "same old Washington politics"? That she'll do anything to win? I follow this stuff for a living, and that's as near as I could come. Moreover, those are comparative strikes, meant to underscore Obama's reformist credentials and his optimistic political style. Neither is a knockout blow, nor anything near to it. Neither suggests that Clinton is unfit for the nomination nor incapable in the general election.
Clinton, for her part, has telegraphed her intentions. "When it comes to finishing the fight," she said, "Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit." But rarely does a match end because the loser up and quits. Rather, it finishes because it becomes inescapably and undeniably clear that the winner has won. To be sure, if you look at the delegate counts, it appears that Obama will win, albeit by a slim margin, and barring an unexpected counter-majoritarian decision by the superdelegates. If Obama would like to wait until June, that slight delegate lead will almost certainly prove enough. If he would like to wrap this up before then, maybe on May 6 in Indiana and North Carolina, then he's going to have to do better. He's going to have to knock out Rocky.
