Today is the day that Barack Obama is virtually certain to score a decisive victory in the New Hampshire. I flew back from New Hampshire this afternoon, and will soon be attending a victory party (7 p.m. to 11:00 p.m.) for Obama at Drinker's Tavern at 124 Market Street in Philadelphia. Any Obama supporter in the Philadelphia area is welcome to come also.
Since the Iowa Caucuses took their current early position in 1976, no one in either party who has won both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary has his been denied his party's nomination. Victories here produce a bonanza of publicity, campaign funds, new volunteers, and new hope, and are a serious blow to opposition candidacies.
The New York Post raised the withdrawal issue obliquely today, with a multipage spread on Hillary's answer to a question about the difficulty of the campaign, and the tears in her eyes while answering that question. Her tears were compared at length to the apparent tears shed by then-frontrunner Ed Muskie in the 1972 Democratic primary, and his ultimate withdrawal from the race.
A front page story in The New York Times,by Patrick Healy, covering four of the six columns with a color picture of a sad Hillary Rodham Clinton in Portsmouth New Hampshire, was entitled "On Eve of Primary, Clinton's Campaign Shows Stress, Display of Emotion as Bid Adjusts to Rise of Obama."
The article asserts the obvious truth that "she is also worried that her political strategy, polling and communications message have not reflected the mood and desire for change among Democratic voters."
It went on to say that that "Advisers say they believe she NEEDS (my emphasis) a victory before the February 5 primaries--if not in New Hampshire, then in Nevada, whose presidential caucuses are January 19. South Carolina, which votes on January 26, has more history than Nevada as a proving ground for candidates, but Mrs. Clinton fears Mr. Obama's support among the black voters that dominate the Democratic vote there...."
A Wall Street Journal article by Jackie Calmes warns that Obama's "momentum threatens to swamp her in the next two states as well and shows signs of fracturing her support in in the party establishment.
"Already," Calmes continues, "some Clinton associates have begun lobbying for her early exit from the race if she loses New Hampshire by a big margin, as polls suggest she could. Several Senate colleagues are now in talks with Obama advisers about endorsing the freshman Illinois senator over his more experienced colleague.
"An ill-important union in Nevada, which votes next on Jan. 19, is considering backing Sen. Obama a day after a New Hampshire win, say some high-ranking Democrats--which could virtually hand him a victory in the labor-dominated caucuses there. And the Clinton campaign is considering effectively ceding South Carolina, which votes a week later...."
I doubt that any union has the power the rabidly anti-union Wall Street Journal seeks to scare its readers with; the more significant problem for Clinton is that her public support is waning as her carefully nuanced positions and persona, carefully calibrated to appeal to general election swing voters, is proving extremely unappealing to primary voters--including independents eligible under Iowa and New Hampshire rules.
Barring some increasingly unlikely reversal from Obama, the Clinton withdrawal is inevitable. It will be intensely sad for all her supporters. It will be a blow to many hopes. But it will also be a step toward a unified Democratic Party giving the country a real opportunity for progressive change.