Clinton looks beyond numbers game

By Kevin Connolly
BBC News, Evansville

The longer the American primary season goes on, the more the results tend to be analysed like stock market movements - it is not so much the actual figures that matter as the degree of variation from what was predicted.

Despite the clear Pennsylvania victory, Mrs Clinton still trails Mr Obama

In the build-up to the vote in Pennsylvania, for example, it was argued that Hillary Clinton needed a double-digit victory to prove that she remained a credible contender for the Democratic nomination.

So when she secured what was really a surprisingly clear win, it somehow seemed like it was barely enough to keep her in the race.

It is almost as though when Senator Clinton wins emphatically, she is criticised for not winning resoundingly.

Battling outsider

She of course, feeds on that kind of talk, since it allows her to portray herself as the battling outsider, dismissed by the establishment.

One of the things that makes Mrs Clinton so psychologically fascinating is her tendency to portray everthing in terms of conflict and confrontation.

And one of the characteristics that makes her so interesting politically is that she is a much better candidate when things are going badly than when they are going well.

As soon as the candidate is chosen, the Democrats will have to start measuring what damage this race has done to their party, and doing what they can to repair it, and quickly Clinton ducks Obama knock-out Q&A: What happens next?

For the moment, she is certainly doing well enough to make the closing stages of the Democratic battle intriguing, and uncomfortable for Barack Obama even though he remains the likelier overall winner.

He retains a small but crucial lead in the key delegate count, which will determine who wins the party's nomination.

There simply are not enough delegates up for grabs to give Mrs Clinton a chance of winning on any realistic projection of the results.

But it is now clear that neither candidate will have secured the magic number of 2025 delegates needed for a clear victory from the primaries alone.

That would allow Mrs Clinton to go into the summer nominating convention arguing that while she might be behind in the numbers game, the battle is not yet lost.

If she is in a position to make that argument, then you can bet she will.

Super-delegate dance

A good deal depends on the decisions of the so-called "super-delegates", those paid party officials, senators, governors and members of congress who all have a vote in the contest.

Senator Obama has been able to parade a steady stream of them of late, introducing them into the primary contest like relief pitchers in a tight baseball game.

Mr Obama hopes his momentum will continue to the Indiana primary

It will be interesting to see if Mrs Clinton's Pennsylvania victory prompts any super-delegates to declare for her.

There is no immediate sign of it, and the truth is that Mr Obama has momentum these days - that most mysterious and most valuable of political properties.

He has other assets too of course - primarily the way in which he has changed the rules of the game when it comes to campaign fundraising.

He has used the internet to rally millions of small donors whose modest contributions cumulatively have turned him against all the odds into the financial powerhouse of Campaign 2008.

Remember when it all started how Hillary Clinton was the candidate with the address book of the great and the good, and the campaigning experience who had be the best-funded figure in the Democratic race?

Something to look out for in the next few days is the extent to which Hillary's Pennsylvania victory will allow her to start bringing in money again.

Americans do not tend to contribute to candidates who look like they are beaten and it will be interesting to see the verdict of the Democratic faithful on Pennsylvania, as expressed in campaign contributions.

Democratic nightmare

The big question of course, is just what Mrs Clinton's strategy in all this really might be.

Does she think that if things are not settled before the party's summer nominating conference in Denver that she will somehow simply emerge victorious from a knock-em-down, drag-em-out fight on the convention floor?

Is Mrs Clinton hoping something might trip up her rival at the last minute?

Or does she believe that it might yet be settled behind closed doors between the party bigwigs who are long term investors in the Clinton brand?

Or is it something cruder? The belief that if you simply hang in there long enough, and the race is close enough, then something might emerge to trip your opponent?

My view is that it is a little of all three, but mainly the last point, the belief that events can trip up even the most sure-footed of candidates.

For the Democratic Party of course, this long drawn-out contest is a nightmare.

The party's primary rules were drawn up with an aching sensitivity to political correctness (no "majoritarianism" here please) but not much to common sense.

They are simply no good at differentiating between two evenly-matched candidates.

On the night Mrs Clinton won in Pennsylvania, I was watching Mr Obama speak in Evansville, Indiana, where he had gone to shift the focus of the headlines from his defeat (Indiana votes next month).

After all the sharp elbows of recent weeks, he had smooth words of concession, but there was a stony silence broken by a little booing, when he congratulated Senator Clinton on her win.

Interesting stuff - if Mrs Clinton were to win the nomination would those people who booed her really be ready to vote for her?

I doubt it. As soon as the candidate is chosen, the Democrats will have to start measuring what damage this race has done to their party, and doing what they can to repair it, and quickly.