Next on the Make-or-Break List

For more than a month now, Hillary Clinton has been doing an impersonation of George H.W. Bush.

If you recall, in the last year of the first Bush's presidency, every speech he gave was supposedly the most important speech of his political life. And when Bush failed to achieve what he needed to achieve, the pundits determined that the next speech would be the most critical speech of his career.

This went on for several months. Hillary should remember it well. At the time, she and her husband were laying the foundation for Bill Clinton's victory that November.

And now, in the last month or so, as Barack Obama piled up win after win, the media solemnly repeated that the next primary was the most important of Hillary Clinton's career.

And, for the last two weeks, we've been told that she had to win Texas and Ohio, or her campaign was over. Bill Clinton told us that, and the media told us that.

So, Hillary won Texas and Ohio.

And now we're being told that Pennsylvania's April 22 primary is the most critical primary of Hillary Clinton's political life.

Charles Mahtesian writes, in the Politico, that "Pennsylvania ... is another must-win state for Hillary Rodham Clinton. But it is also a should-win state."

Pennsylvania is like Ohio, Mahtesian says, "older and whiter" than most of America.

"The issues that rank high on [voters'] list of priorities -- like health care and the economy -- are the ones on which Clinton tends to draw the most support," Mahtesian writes. "And just as in Ohio, much of the state’s political establishment is aligned with Clinton, led by a popular Democratic governor who’s pulling out all the stops on her behalf."

Well, Pennsylvania is the last large state to vote. After that, all that will be left is a handful of small and mid-sized states. But, unless the winner of those primaries gets about 80% of the popular vote in every state, it doesn't appear likely to me that either candidate can get enough delegates to wrap up the nomination ahead of the convention in Denver in August.

Clinton leads in recent polls of Pennsylvania Democras. Rasmussen Reports' poll (completed Feb. 26) has Clinton with 46%, Obama with 42% and 12% undecided. The Quinnipiac University poll (completed Feb. 25) reported Clinton in front with 49% to 43% for Obama, 7% undecided and 1% for someone else.

Now, those numbers look good for Clinton. But merely winning isn't going to be enough to secure the nomination. For that matter, an overwhelming victory in Pennsylvania won't be enough to clinch the nomination. But it might be enough to narrow the gap.

And that gap is likely to get a little wider in the weeks before the Pennsylvania primary. Next Tuesday, for example, Mississippi will be holding its primaries. Obama might do very well there, with slightly more than 36% of the state's population being black. The Illinois senator has been getting more than 80% of the black vote in almost every primary and caucus so far.

And, in states like Mississippi (and South Carolina in January), that's been enough to win, most of the time. But in states like Texas and California, where large Hispanic populations have been mostly pro-Clinton, the New York senator has been the winner.

So the demographics in Mississippi suggest that Obama will win there.

Should Clinton stay in the race? Should she drop out in a gesture to party unity? Everyone has an opinion. Even -- perhaps especially -- people in foreign countries.

Anatole Koletsky writes, in the Times of London, that the Democrats must nominate Clinton. "Mr. Obama is much more likely than Mrs. Clinton to be defeated by John McCain," writes Koletsky, acknowledging that this assessment is based (to a certain extent) on recent polls.

Polls can shift dramatically in eight months, and it would be easy to dismiss Koletsky if polls were all that he used to formulate his opinion.

But he also factors in the race vs. gender angle, and he concludes that Clinton is the clear choice because gender trumps race. "In any rational comparison of frustrated talent, women, who are half the world's population, have suffered far more from disempowerment than Africans, Hispanics, Jews or any other racial group."

Jann Wenner writes in Rolling Stone in glowing terms about Obama's life story. "He chose to work as a community organizer in the projects of Chicago rather than join the wealthy insider world of corporate law," writes Wenner.

Er, um, excuse me, but have you read the companion piece to that biography? That would be the story of Obama's wife, Michelle, corporate lawyer, Ivy League-educated, receives more than 300 grand every year doing community relations for the University of Chicago hospital system.

If you're married to a lawyer who makes that kind of money, it makes it fairly easy to make sacrifices. Keep in mind, Obama worked in the projects. He didn't live in the projects.

Gary Andres writes, in the Washington Times, that Democrats just can't make up their minds.

It's like the Deal or No Deal program, Andres says.

"Until Tuesday, it looked like Democrats had reached a collective decision, but that now appears in doubt," Andres writes.

"Do they take the risk, choose the unknown and possibly win the big prize? Or, do they go back to the original frontrunner, who carries her own set of risks and baggage? Or, do Democrats choose another solution — one that several pundits and superdelegates now suggest more openly: Why not a Clinton-Obama or Obama-Clinton ticket?

"The only thing missing is a deal about who gets top billing."

Stay tuned. The show will go on.

Or maybe the words of Emerson Lake & Palmer would be more appropriate: "Welcome back, my friends, to the show that never ends."