Did Bill Clinton’s Call-to-Arms Rally Supporters?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/05/us/politics/05cnd-bill.html

March 5, 2008
Did Bill Clinton’s Call-to-Arms Rally Supporters?
By MICHAEL LUO
It was a declaration that quickly became etched in the granite of conventional wisdom.

Ignoring all the thou-shalt-nots inscribed in the bible of expectations management, former President Bill Clinton declared in Beaumont, Tex., several weeks ago that his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, needed to win Ohio and Texas to stay alive in her battle with Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“If she wins Texas and Ohio, I think she will be the nominee,” Mr. Clinton said. “If you don’t deliver for her, then I don’t think she can be.”

Last night, Mrs. Clinton pulled off triumphs in both Ohio and Texas, as well as Rhode Island. So instead of becoming Exhibit No.1 for Democratic power brokers, pundits and others marshaling arguments for her to bow out of the race, Mr. Clinton’s pronouncement now looks like a dead-on critical call-to-arms, showing his legendary political instincts.

Mr. Clinton’s statement that his wife had to win Texas and Ohio ended up dogging Mrs. Clinton on the campaign trail, as she was constantly asked about the remark, including at a news conference on Tuesday morning in Houston.

She sidestepped the query, saying she did not “think like that,” but hinted at plans for a long battle to come.

“You know, this is a long process,” she said. “As you’ve heard me say before, my husband didn’t get the nomination wrapped up until June.”

Mr. Obama’s campaign fired back, using Mr. Clinton’s own words as ammunition.

“Three weeks ago, when they led polls in Texas and Ohio by 20 points, the Clinton campaign set their own test for today’s primaries,” Bill Burton, a spokesman, said in an e-mail message.

Conceding the pressure on her to exit would be enormous if she lost either state, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers had been doing their best to walk back Mr. Clinton’s declaration, suggesting that an Ohio victory alone, coupled with her strong fund-raising recently — $32 million in February, still lagging behind Mr. Obama, who brought in about $50 million — would be enough for her to continue on to the delegate-rich Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

Some outside political strategists saw Mr. Clinton’s comments as a tactically shrewd effort to re-energize a flagging campaign and remind voters of the stakes of her losing the two states — a tactic that, in the end, seemed to have worked.

Joe Trippi, who was a senior strategist for John Edwards’s campaign, said he believed Mr. Clinton’s remarks were politically astute, whether they were scripted or improvised in the heat of the moment.

“People, deep down, like both her and Obama,” Mr. Trippi said. “When either one of them is on the ropes, they don’t want to see either one of them die.”

He added that he believed Mr. Clinton recognized that pattern when he made his comments.

“She needs your help,” Mr. Trippi said, “is not a bad strategy.”

Paul Begala, a former adviser to Mr. Clinton, said he believed the comment was a moment of candor, which voters tend to appreciate, comparing it to when Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle, declared at a rally in Iowa before the caucuses that her husband needed to win the state in order to continue.

“Authenticity is the thing voters want most,” Mr. Begala said. “Here’s Bill Clinton standing up, having gone to Georgetown and to Oxford and to Yale. He now has a Ph.D. of the obvious. After 11 losses, you need a win.”

Mr. Begala said he had no idea if the moment was poll-tested and planned ahead of time but said he tended to doubt it, adding he believed Mr. Clinton saw the political benefits, as well as the potential fallout.

“He is the most transparent of politicians,” he said. “If he thinks something, he says it.”

There is, however, the matter of simple mathematical reality. With the way the two have been splitting the proportional allocation of delegates, it remains extremely difficult for Mrs. Clinton to catch Mr. Obama among pledged delegates, something the results Tuesday did little to alter. But at the same time, neither candidate is likely to garner enough delegates to clinch the nomination

Mark Mellman, a Democratic pollster, said Mr. Clinton simply articulated a reality that was obvious, with or without his comments.

Mrs. Clinton still faces steep odds, he said, but she can at least make a case now to the all-important super-delegates who could decide the contest.

“Her only chance was to win both big ones,” Mr. Mellman said. “And she did.”