By winning Ohio decisively and squeaking by in Texas, Hillary Clinton managed to resuscitate her campaign if only in the sense that she buys herself more time. Even after her victories in Rhode Island, Texas and Ohio, she still trails in the pledged delegate count and few would dispute the fact that, even though her campaign is alive, it is still very much on life-support.

But make no mistake, by her victory speech in Ohio late last night, Hillary made it clear that she is not going anywhere anytime soon. If she has no prospect of ever winning a sufficient number of pledged delegates why is she marching on? This question has been the subject of much editorializing by many in the mainstream media.

The evidence was scant for Alter's suggestion that it would make sense for Hillary to drop out of the race before Texas and Ohio. Alter and other journalists made the mistake of attributing Hillary's kind words for Obama at the close of the debate in Texas as "valedictory', as if she had somehow resigned herself to the specter of defeat and would do what is best for the party. A study of the political history of the Clintons' would have suggested otherwise. Time and again, the Clintons' have demonstrated their ruthlessness and Machiavellian political tactics. The Clintons' will say anything and do anything to acquire and maintain political power. If there was the slightest possibility that Hillary could continue in the race, what made journalists think that she would not pursue it? Hillary's "valedictory" closing remarks was nothing more than another manifestation of her multiple-personality disorder that has recently plagued her campaign —nothing more, nothing less.

Hillary's decision to remain in the race is predicated solely on her hope and expectation that over time, buyer's remorse among primary voters over Obama's ethereal candidacy will set in. Her long-shot strategy was somewhat buttressed by the verdict of Ohio and Rhode Island voters. If skepticism about Obama's qualifications continues unabated in the remaining primaries — a big if —, then she will have an argument for the super-delegates that Obama is not a viable general election candidate against John McCain. As someone who grew up in Ohio, I had suspected that the cult of Obama would be a hard sell among voters in the Buckeye State, particularly among blue-collar workers both currently employed as well as those dislocated. And indeed it was. Will voters in Pennsylvania have similar doubts?

The Democratic Party is poised to experience an unprecedented internecine conflict for the remainder of the primary season due its pursuit of two potentially incommensurable goals. One the one hand, there is the desire to let the voters decide who the nominee will be. Adding up the pledged delegates solves this problem. On this basis, based on the pledged delegate count, even after Hillary's win in Texas and Ohio, the voters seem to prefer Obama. On the other hand, if Obama's reputation or stature is badly wounded as a result of  the primary battles, the issue for the party is who is the candidate best able to defeat John McCain in the general election. That may not necessarily be Obama. Complicating this further is the fact that most democratic primary voters want the contest to continue. As such, the prospects of the party lining up behind a nominee well before the convention seem remote.

Hillary's argument to the super-delegates that she has slowed Obama's momentum may not be a winning argument, but it is not entirely implausible. Hillary will continue in the race because her victories last night indicate that the sheen of Obama's halo may finally have been tarnished.

Hillary was correct about the disparity in press treatment afforded the two candidates. The swooning, uncritical, obsequious press reporting on Obama represents a new low for American journalism. Intoxicated with Obama fervor, many journalists have woke up with a hangover,r and even though for some, he is their preferred candidate, they suddenly realized that as journalists, they nonetheless had a duty to be skeptical, when warranted, instead of acting as Obama cheerleaders.  

in an attempt to redress the imbalance occasioned by skewed and unjustifiable favoritism, the mainstream press is starting to cast a wary eye towards the Obama campaign. Recently, Obama hastily fled a press conference, under assault by a wolf-pack of native Chicago reporters who peppered him with questions about his land deal with Tony Rezco. Most Chicago journalists find Obama's perfunctory "I did a dumb thing" explanation as wholly unsatisfactory and will continue to hound him on this score. His behavior at the press conference also raises an interesting question that Hillary's attacks implicitly raise: Obama can't take a punch.

Having basked in the adulation of fawning press coverage for so long, Obama will now be facing serious scrutiny from the press corps. He was caught telling a lie about the conversation with Canadian officials about his pretended NAFTA posturing and the response of his campaign to this scandal to date, has not been reassuring.

Obama's candidacy, to a large degree, has been based on vacuous and shallow assertions of feel-good oratory; his balloon is dangerously filled with combustible ether, that if pricked, always ran the risk of exploding, revealing to those anchored in reality, that he is singularly unqualified for the presidency. Armed with the realization that her negative attacks bore fruit (most late deciding voters decisively voted in her favor), Hillary intends to keep pricking that balloon.

One thing is certain. If the super-delegates pick Hillary over Obama, there will be an outcry on the part of the party's most loyal voting bloc: African-Americans. Cries of a stolen election and much bitterness will ensue that will create irreparable damage to the Democratic Party. Thus, either course of action for the Democrats is fraught with peril. No matter who the ultimate nominee is, there exists the very real possibility that both candidates will be badly sullied by a protracted primary battle. For those Democrats who decry "negative campaigning", brace yourselves, for there is more to come.