Neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama won; they and their party all lost. Only John McCain won, big time.
Here's why.
Clinton lost because her delegate difficulty intensifies, not eases; her negative attacks demean her, invite a counter-attack and provide fodder for the Republicans; and she can "win" only by convention skulduggery that will alienate Obama supporters, without whose votes she cannot prevail in the November poll.
After three victories last Tuesday, including a thumping one in Ohio, Clinton clawed back a net 11 delegates. According to Newsweek's Jonathan Alter, to beat Obama among pledged delegates, Clinton needs an average 26-point win in the 12 primaries and caucuses left. His lead in delegates is now 144.
To overtake him, Clinton will need to win 378 of the 611 delegates in the remaining primaries a herculean task that will be made feasible only by a significant Obama gaffe or scandal rather than anything she can do. Negative attacks work; people get the politics they deserve. Clinton won not by projecting her vision but destroying his charisma. The strategy will be repeated and reciprocated.
The notorious 3am red phone ad was the campaign's decisive moment, sowing sufficient doubts in voters' minds about Obama's and readiness to be commander-in-chief. It was a more subliminal and sophisticated repackaging of Bill Clinton's warning that electing Obama with an exotic name and Muslim middle name was a risky roll of the dice. The controversy about Obama's NAFTA "wink wink" to Canadians and questionable ties to a real estate dealer in Chicago, who went on trial one day before the primaries, added to the unease and foreboding. At a time of anxiety and uncertainty personal, national and global voters chose to play safe.
Having found her voice in New Hampshire for her first comeback, Clinton stumbled into her meta-narrative in Ohio and Texas for the second dramatic rescue of her near-death campaign: she is a fighter and will fight relentlessly on behalf of the majority who have lost out under the present Administration. This gives her a unifying core theme, rallies the base and keeps her team on message.
While some voters will recoil from the negative attacks, most tolerate it, knowing the Republicans will subject the eventual nominee to worse. If Obama does not have the toughness to withstand such attacks, he should exit the presidential bullpen. Had Obama attacked earlier, he would have undermined his defining message of hope and healing. Now it will count as self-defence. Having taunted him as too soft to take on McCain, Clinton has directly provoked Obama into a tougher attack on her. The primary arithmetic still favours him but will not suffice. His inability to close the deal and win big states are big weaknesses.
Obama must focus relentlessly on the fatal flaw in Clinton's campaign as bad as his failure to deliver an electoral coup de grace: her 20-point advantage vanished or halved within two weeks of the serious campaigning, even without any serious attacks on her record and credibility. Obama has demanded the media focus on Clinton's evasions about making public tax details and the list of donors to Bill Clinton's presidential library and other activities.
Just what is Clinton's actual experience? Why won't she issue the White House papers to back her claims? Absent corroboration, some are laughable: for example, that she helped bring peace to Northern Ireland. How about a direct and targeted comparison of both candidates' property dealings and legal problems?
Obama needs to puncture Clinton's carefully constructed public persona and remind voters of past scandals and problems. He needs his own attack ads ridiculing her propensity to play victim-in-chief; question whether her demeanour is presidential enough through her gushing, hectoring, mocking and complaining personas; and reveal her claims to lifelong experience as a fairy tale. And he needs to say he will not be a vice-presidential also-ran to rid voters of the delusion that they can have both. If he doesn't, he risks being history.
But if he does, he risks gutting his party. Clinton can now legitimately claim to have public backing for her campaign to carry on. Neither has reason to quit. In the meantime, ethnic, gender and class divisions will intensify. The deepening and mutual contempt will prolong a bitter civil war among Democrats that could alienate voters from the losing candidate's camp and mortally wound the eventual nominee.
What seemed exciting and was drawing millions of new and young voters to politics is turning into a protracted guerrilla war. At the start of the campaign, Democrats were energised by having two great candidates. About three-quarters said they would be happy with either. That figure is now about 40 per cent.
Based on demographics, the likely results in the main contests to come will be: Mississippi (March 11, 40, Obama); Pennsylvania (April 22, 187, Clinton); West Virginia (May 13, 39, Clinton); North Carolina (May 6, 134, Obama); Oregon (May 20, 65, Obama); and Indiana (May 6, 84, tie). A de facto stalemate by April-May means the contest will be decided on the convention floor in August.
If strong-arm tactics in the convention lead to superdelegates overturning Obama's lead in pledged delegates, his outraged supporters will abandon the party in droves. If the nomination is awarded to Obama without counting the disqualified Michigan and Florida results, many Clinton supporters from those states will walk away from the party.
The party has allowed a state of confusion to arise that looks set to leave half of its voters furious. A party so politically and organisationally inept deserves to lose. The Republicans can neither believe their luck nor contain their glee.
It was 3am. Deep in the Democratic heartland, a crisis began brewing, simmered and boiled over on March 4. The party elders heard the red phone ringing for two weeks. No one answered.
Ramesh Thakur is a distinguished fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation and a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo.