Hillary Rodham Clinton greeted supporters. (Photo: Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times)By ADAM NAGOURNEY – THE NEW YORK TIMES
The Democratic Party may prove to have been the real loser in the Pennsylvania primary on Tuesday.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York defeated Senator Barack Obama of Illinois by enough of a margin to continue a battle that Democrats increasingly believe is undermining their effort to unify the party and prepare for the general election against Senator John McCain of Arizona.
That worry was confirmed in exit polls that again highlighted the racial, economic, gender and values divisions in the party that Republicans would no doubt try to exploit if Mr. Obama won the nomination.
Barack Obama greeted residents in West Philadelphia. (Photo: Ozier Muhammad/The New York Times)To take one example, only 50 percent of Democratic Catholic voters who attend church weekly said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election; 25 percent said would vote for Mr. McCain.
“This is exactly what I was afraid was going to happen,” said Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat who has not endorsed anyone in the race. “They are going to just keep standing there and pounding each other and bloodying each other, and no one is winning. It underlines the need to find some way to bring this to conclusion.”
The Democratic Party, so energized and optimistic just a few months ago, thus finds itself in a position few would have expected: a nomination battle unresolved, with two candidates engaged in increasingly damaging attacks. At a time when the Democratic Party would dearly like to turn its attention to Mr. McCain, it now faces at least two more weeks of campaigning — and perhaps considerably more — risking continued damage to the images of both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
That said, the fears confronting Democrats could be swept away reasonably soon. Mrs. Clinton still faces immense hurdles to securing the nomination, and it remains possible that her candidacy could come to an end in as little as two weeks, when Indiana and North Carolina vote. Should that be the case, the Democratic Party would presumably have the time and the motivation to heal its wounds.
“We have problems going both ways, but that is going to get healed,” said Joe Trippi, who was a senior adviser to the presidential campaign of John Edwards of North Carolina, who quit the race earlier this year. “If it doesn’t get healed, we have problems.”
Still, the voting patterns on Tuesday underlined what has been one of Mrs. Clinton’s central arguments to Democratic Party leaders in asserting that Mr. Obama would have trouble as a general election candidate. Once again, as in Ohio six weeks ago, he is struggling to win support from the kinds of voters that could be critical to a Democratic victory in the fall. Mrs. Clinton posed the question bluntly on Tuesday.
“Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?” Mrs. Clinton said outside a polling place in a northern suburb of Philadelphia. “Why can’t he win in a state like this?”
Mr. Obama continues to hold a lead over Mrs. Clinton in the total popular vote cast, as well as in pledged delegates. Those factors will weigh heavily on the superdelegates, elected Democrats and party leaders whose votes will be needed to give Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama the 2,025 total to claim the nomination.
Still, there were some worrisome signs for Mr. Obama after what has been several rough weeks for him on the campaign trail. At the least, he would have some work to do going into the fall if he wins the nomination, a point made even by his supporters.
“The negative attacks have had a little damage,” said Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico. “I do believe it’s recoverable, mainly because of his theme of unity and bringing people together. But it has brought a little bit of damage.”
Mr. Richardson, reflecting the general concern among Democrats about the campaign, added: “I also believe Senator Clinton’s negative attacks have hurt her as well, as recent polls have shown.”
The results of the exit poll, conducted at 40 precincts across Pennsylvania by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press, also found stark evidence that Mr. Obama’s race could be a problem in the general election. Sixteen percent of white voters said race mattered in deciding who they voted for, and just 56 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election; 27 percent of them said they would vote for Mr. McCain if Mr. Obama was the Democratic nominee, and 15 percent said they would not vote at all.
After weeks in which Mr. Obama was pressed to explain what his opponents sought to characterize as disparaging remarks about gun owners and church-goers, Mrs. Clinton defeated him among those voters.
About 15 percent of Democratic voters said they would vote for Mr. McCain over Mr. Obama in a general election. Mrs. Clinton defeated Mr. Obama overwhelmingly among Catholics, a constituency that will be critical in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania.
“There are issues people raise about him, and there are also issues they raise about Senator Clinton,” Mr. Bredesen said. “They both have great strengths and they also have weaknesses. The sooner it is we end this and try to figure out how to address those weaknesses, the better.”
Mrs. Clinton was quick to vow that she would push on to the next big races in Indiana and North Carolina. Yet if the outcome threw her enough of a line to keep going, it probably did not do much to help her accomplish two of her top goals: narrowing Mr. Obama’s overall lead in the popular vote, or his lead in delegates elected in caucuses and primaries to date.
But Mrs. Clinton faces some tough obstacles. Her campaign is effectively out of money, and the results Tuesday may not make it that much easier to raise money
“She needed a big win because a big win might spark the $30 million or $40 million coming into her that she is going to need to compete in Indiana, North Carolina, Oregon and West Virginia,” Mr. Trippi said.
Megan Thee, Marjorie Connelly and John M. Broder contributed reporting.
es électeurs de l’Iowa, qui ont participé massivement, jeudi 3 janvier, aux votes sur les candidats républicains et démocrates à l’élection présidentielle de novembre, ont préféré le changement. Les deux vainqueurs de cette consultation ont en commun de ne pas appartenir à l’establishment de Washington, même si l’un d’entre eux a été élu au Sénat fédéral en 2004.
