For Barack Obama, South Dakota's vote carries symbolic value
The long-anticipated close to the Democratic presidential race seemingly has arrived, with only the theatrics of the final act yet to be scripted. Still, a mini-drama well worth watching will be played out in South Dakota tonight.
Barack Obama is expected to win in Montana, but as South Dakotans vote today in the other contest that brings the curtain down on the primary season, the result there are seen as up in the air. And although Obama will be focusing tonight, Wednesday and the rest of this week on officially clinching his party's nomination, he and his brain trust undoubtedly would like to do so with two final wins, rather than a split decision.
Symbolism is at work; the difference between a final sprint through the finish line, rather than jogging across it.
Taking even a longer view, recall that Obama pulled ahead in his race with Hillary Clinton -- to stay, as it turned out -- thanks to an impressive string of primary and caucus wins in the four weeks after Super Tuesday on Feb. 5. But Clinton rebounded at that point.
On March 4, her wins in the Ohio and Texas primaries enabled her to stave off calls that she end her candidacy. And since then, she's showed impressive strengths -- especially in her landslide wins in West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico.
Tallying all the contests from March 4 through today -- and counting the Texas primary/caucus "two-step" as distinct results -- finds that Clinton has won 8, Obama 6, and one was a virtual tie; Obama's margin in the Guam caucuses was 7 votes and the two candidates split the 4 delegates at stake.
It's purely academic, but the Obama forces would prefer to look back on this final segment of the nomination battle and see a scorecard that, with victories in Montana and South Dakota, reads 8-8-1.
That is especially so for one senior advisor to Obama -- the former senator from South Dakota, Tom Daschle.
It was bad enough that his constituents ousted him from office, and his perch as the Democratic Senate leader, in 2004. It would be another embarrassment for him if he can't bring his home state into the Obama column. Nor would it help his prospects, which have been discussed, as an Obama running mate.
-- Don Frederick
Photo credit: Getty Images
Andrew Malcolm's immigrant parents repeatedly stressed the importance of active participation in a democracy. Early lessons included learning the alphabetical list of states by watching televised roll calls of national political conventions. That childhood exposure led to a lifelong fascination with politics, including 40-plus years of covering them and a brief stint practicing them as press secretary to Laura Bush in 1999-2000. A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Malcolm served on the Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four.
Johanna Neuman is a veteran Washington correspondent for both The Los Angeles Times and USA Today, having covered presidents and politics as far back as Ronald Reagan. A former president of the White House Correspondents Assn., she authored a book on media and foreign policy, “Lights, Camera, Wars.” Most recently she was co-author of the 
Subscribe to this Blog
If Clinton pulls off South Dakota, it is only because there were THREE Clintons campaigning there, full time, over and over, to Obama's one. To be fair, why did you identify Mar 4. as specific? You should have counted from February 5th, the Super Tuesday that Clinton thought would be her victory-speech day.
Posted by: tony | June 03, 2008 at 04:48 PM
"Symbolism is at work; the difference between a final sprint through the finish line, rather than jogging across it."
Really? Who's going to remember five months from now whether Obama won South Dakota? This talk of "symbolism" seems to be another way of saying "I have nothing substantive to say, so rather than discuss what issues McCain and Obama will be arguing over in the general election I will cling to this final shred of horse-race information as firmly as Linus Van Pelt to his blanket."
Posted by: Patience | June 03, 2008 at 06:37 PM
"f Clinton pulls off South Dakota, it is only because there were THREE Clintons campaigning there, full time, over and over, to Obama's one"
Oh yea, but she does not have bimbos parading for her, ok?
Posted by: debbie | June 03, 2008 at 07:33 PM
While some may believe the results of this primary are irrelevant, a loss would underscore Senator Obama's weaknesses. He is a good candidate, but there are many people who did not think he was the better candidate. Democrats who ignore that will be ceding the election to Senator McCain.
Posted by: Tina | June 03, 2008 at 07:45 PM
It's clear that based on the results of these final weeks that Obama will be LIMPING into Denver.
Daschle's inability to deliver S. Dakota for BO is just a nail in the coffin for this already acknowledged loser. I can't imagine that any presidential candidate would choose Daschle who lost his own senate seat. Of course, I'll remember him for calling Clinton a seriously "flawed" candidate. Oh really? Who's the last candidate he can recall winning almost 18 million votes during a primary?
Posted by: Cathy | June 08, 2008 at 02:09 PM