Clinton Campaign Needs A Texas-sized Miracle

The pundits have been humbled throughout the primary process this year.  Often wrong, they’ve been slow to make predictions about the direction of the 2008 primaries.  So why are the “experts” confidently declaring that Hillary Clinton needs help to stay afloat in the Democratic nomination race?  With the race so close, why are pundits choosing now to come out from the shadows to declare Texas and Ohio as decisive states for Hillary Clinton’s campaign?

The answer is simple in some cases, they’re beginning to show bias towards Senator Barack Obama.  Often, politicos (myself included) make predictions that are strongly rooted in bias and they ‘hope’ for certain results.  They/we believe, whether voluntary and with agenda or involuntarily and passively, that if you weave a story long enough and repeat it enough times, it’ll surely come true.   The fact of the matter is, making a full-proof prediction with respect to the democratic nomination is foolish.  There are few certainties outside the Bush Administrations participation in war crimes overseas.

One thing is certain, the democratic race is so tight and delegate count so close that Democrats are assured a close match through convention if neither candidate steps down. So why does Hillary Clinton need Texas and Ohio to stay in this race?  For one, she’s lost nine states in a row and her best shot at turning it around (Wisconsin) just handed her a strong defeat. If she can pull in Texas, the delegate count will continue to be painstakingly close and she’ll be able to put forward an argument that Hillary Clinton has the star power to win the big states like Texas, NY, and California and the big states are crucial for securing the general election in 2008.  Of course, it would be highly unlikely for any Democrat to take Texas, but at least Hillary Clinton can make the arguments that she, alone, could take John McCain where Barack Obama might struggle.

On the other hand, Barack Obama has something that Hillary Clinton doesn’t have — universal appeal.  Let’s face it, Barack Obama is beloved throughout the Democratic party and some Republicans have even taken a liking to  him.  His strength among those Republicans and anti-War independents could spell an early doom for John McCain heading into 2008.  If Obama secures Texas (it’s a toss up right now) then he has a very strong argument for the nomination, one that would be difficult to defeat without major controversy.  That is, Obama would be in a position to say that he defeated Hillary Clinton in the majority of Democratic states that held an election and his campaign has erupted since his major upset in Iowa.  He’s won 10 in a row since Super Tuesday and it’s just impossible to see  Hillary Clinton defeating that argument if she doesn’t take Texas and Ohio to muddle up the process.  Furthermore, Barack Obama’s lead will be large enough that it would be a great American controversy and conspiracy if he were to lose the nomination.

So does Texas and Ohio matter?  Absolutely, these states matter more than ever in a democratic presidential primary.

The former mayor of San Francisco, Mayor Willie Brown said:

 ”[Superdelegates] are the keepers of the faith [...] You have superdelegates because this is the Democratic Party. You don’t want the bleed-over from the Green Party, the independents and others in deciding who your nominee will be.”

That takes some of the attraction out of the Democratic process, but if he’s right, then the superdelegates shouldn’t interfere with this years process.  After all, there are no spoilers running in this years race, it’s the two Democratic all-stars, Clinton and Obama, and short of that Texas-sized miracle, it looks like Barack Obama is well on his way to the Democratic nomination victory.

Fred Soto is an Attorney and Entrepreneur from the Silicon Valley.
Email this author | All posts by Fred Soto