ANALYSISResult raises questions as to how Obama lost in Pennsylvania despite a far bigger campaign budget, writes Denis Staunton
HILLARY CLINTON's convincing victory in Pennsylvania has ensured that the Democratic presidential race will continue for at least another two weeks, attracted a flood of new money into her campaign and reinforced doubts within the party about Barack Obama as a presidential candidate.
Clinton's path to the nomination remains difficult and narrow, however, and Obama, who enjoys an almost insuperable lead among elected delegates, is still the clear favourite to take on Republican John McCain in November. Clinton supporters contributed $3 million (€1.9 million) within hours of Tuesday night's result but her campaign is still at a huge financial disadvantage as she faces into the remaining primaries. At the beginning of April, Obama had more than $41 million cash in hand and less than $1 million in debts; Clinton had $9 million but owed more than $10 million.
Even in Pennsylvania, most Democrats said they expect Obama to win the nomination and many party insiders fear that an extended contest can only damage the eventual Democratic nominee and make victory in November less likely.
Tuesday's result has raised uncomfortable questions about Obama, however and even his own backers are asking why, after outspending Clinton by a margin of three to one in Ohio last month and in Pennsylvania this week, he failed to win either state.
Clinton argues that those big, industrial states are precisely the ones a Democrat needs to win in November to take back the White House and that Obama's failure to connect with white working-class voters is a potentially fatal weakness.
Obama won Pennsylvania's African-American voters, those under 40, the better-educated and the more affluent. But he lost to Clinton among women, older voters, white men, Catholics and those without a college degree. Clinton won 60 of the state's 67 counties, defeating Obama almost everywhere except Philadelphia. She won Scranton, in the northeast of the state, by more than 50 points and won a number of the affluent Philadelphia suburbs that Obama's campaign had viewed as fertile ground.
Obama points out that Clinton had the support of Pennsylvania's governor and of the mayors of Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and more than 100 other towns and cities, giving her an organisational advantage. Obama's financial resources allowed him, on the other hand, to open more offices in the state, employ more staff and run three times as many television adverts as Clinton.
Two weeks ago, Obama seemed to be closing in on Clinton in Pennsylvania and his campaign believed he was poised to drive her out of the race with an upset victory. Then came the news of his comments at a San Francisco fundraiser, when he said that voters in Pennsylvanian small towns were bitter because of economic hardship.
"They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations," he said.
Despite a media furore and Clinton's intense piling on over the remarks, they seemed initially to have had little effect on the polls, most of which showed Clinton ahead by only about five points. The controversy appears to have halted Obama's momentum in the state, however, and most voters who made up their minds in the final days of the campaign opted for Clinton.
Obama complained that Clinton's harping on about his "bitter" comments represented "the old politics of slash and burn" that he wants to rise above. But the controversy highlighted what some Democrats perceive as Obama's greatest weakness as a candidate - his sometimes aloof, professorial style that appeals to upscale voters and the young but turns off the white working class and older voters.
For weeks, Clinton's campaign has been whispering to superdelegates - the senior party officials whose votes could determine the nomination - that Obama's base of African-Americans and affluent liberals are likely to vote Democratic in November regardless of the nominee, but the voters Clinton won in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio are conservative "Reagan Democrats" who could defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee.
Obama has now blown four chances to shut down the Democratic race by driving Clinton out - in New Hampshire in January, on Super Tuesday in February, in Ohio and Texas in March and in Pennsylvania this week. His failure to strike a knockout blow has helped Clinton to portray him as a candidate who lacks the killer instinct needed to withstand what she calls the Republican "attack machine" in November.
Her own resilience has allowed Clinton to define herself as a tough candidate with the grit and determination to pick herself up after each setback and who will fight for ordinary Americans' interests in the White House.
Between now and May 6th, when North Carolina and Indiana vote, Clinton will keep chipping away at Obama's image, raising questions about his past associations and telling superdelegates that she has the best chance of winning the key states in November. But she has little chance of catching up among elected delegates and even after Pennsylvania, Obama has a 500,000 lead in the overall popular vote, excluding the disputed primaries in Florida and Michigan.
Clinton has little hope of winning in North Carolina but she must win Indiana if she is to keep the race alive until the last states vote on June 3rd. Indiana adjoins Obama's home state of Illinois and includes some of Chicago's outer suburbs, giving him an important organisational advantage.
Demographically, however, Indiana is similar to Pennsylvania and Ohio, and Clinton has the support of Senator Evan Bayh, the state's most popular Democratic politician. Some of Obama's advisers want him to push back at Clinton, raising questions about her honesty and casting doubt on the achievements of Bill Clinton's presidency.
Others are urging caution, pointing out that, even if he loses Indiana, Obama remains on course to win the nomination. They warn that going negative could tarnish his image in the general election as a candidate of hope who can rise above partisan divisions to unite the country.
Denis Staunton is Washington Correspondent