results : the Democratic race goes on

Rhode Island was called for Senator Clinton (58%) early in the night with Vermont going to Senator Obama (60%). 

The results for Ohio were known later on and though the bigger cities had not been counted yet, Clinton appeared to have the lead which was later confirmed. As I write, with 92% of preccincts reporting, Clinton is ahead with 55% of the vote to Obama's 43%. 

She delivered a victory speech in Columbus, Ohio. The crowd was deafenlingly enthusiastic all along and cheered her with the words "yes she will" offering a response to Obama's famous "yes we can". She reminded her audience that the candidate who became president had always won the Ohio primary : "as Ohio goes, so goes the nation". 

She resorted to the familiar talking points against Obama : emphasizing her experience, her ability to lead and to pick up the phone at 3 in the morning and take the right decision !

She insisted on the historic aspect of her victory and of the 2008 campaign and she is saying that voters want their chance to count, suggesting that, regardless of the results in Texas, she would soldier on to the convention. 

Barack Obama's speech last night was much more subdued and the crowd wasn't its usual roaring self. 

Although all the preccincts have yet to report in Texas, the media are calling the Lone Star State for Hillary Clinton. 

So what does this all mean for Clinton, Obama and the Democrats? 

Is this a disaster for Sen. Obama? Actually it is disappointing but it will probably not make a huge difference in terms of delegate count. The Obama campaign projects that it will still be in the lead delegate wise. Remember that the delegates are apportioned proportionally in the Democratic primaries, which means that even if he loses the primary in a State, Sen. Obama may well be allocated a significant number of delegates. 

What do Hillary Clinton's victories of last night tell us about the Democratic campaign? 

First, this clearly shows that her candidacy is not quite as desperate as suggested by some commentators who were calling for her to step down. She is capable of energizing the voters who are sending at least one clear message : they want the race to continue. 

Next, these victories show that Clinton is good at winning the big States. She has taken California, New York (she would probably add Florida and Michigan, although the DNC punished these states for holding the primaries early in the season). Does that mean that she has the best chances against McCain in November? Well, it seems unlikely that California and N.Y. would vote for a Republican anyway but would she be more able of winning Ohio (a bellwether State = one of the States that can be used as a national indicator) and Texas than Obama? One may doubt that, since Sen. Obama seems to appeal to independents and moderates more than Sen. Clinton does.