a victory that isn't

Among the things that the Clinton White House was very good at, was controlling how stories got reported in the press. They did it with such subtlely and panache that often no one knew what was happening before it was too late. They called Reagan the Great Communicator, but they made movies about how well Bill Clinton could Wag the Dog.

Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning were great examples of how getting new help at the top can help reinvent your image across America. And the press is more than happy to go along with the deception because it's fun. Or not. Well, it's expensive.

Here's the scenario. Hillary wins decisively in Ohio, cue the victory speech, cue the confetti, cue the raised arms. Do this moments after McCain accepts the nomination of his party. It was as though HRC was being heralded as the nominee of her own party.

Then cue the Texas primary results, which Hillary also won. By a narrow margin but now we have Decisive Victories. Headlines. Turnaround. Cue We are the Champion.

Except.

If the race is about delegates and if at the end of the process you end up with fewer delegates, isn't that a loss? Because of the way Texas splits its delegates, Obama will emerge two-days later as the victor. And without the massive headlines. He will still be viewed by most of America as losing on Tuesday. HRC won 4 more delegates that day than Obama. Is this really a turn-around?

You may not like the way the Clintons play politics, but they play to win. Why else play?