Top Dog/Underdog: The Power of the Story

The story of the moment in Ohio and Texas is dominated by Hillary's take: an underdog makes a comeback. ("I'm just getting warmed up," she said.) Her eleven state losing streak made her underdog, and winning Texas and Ohio shows her campaign is, as the Times' headline announces, "turning around."

Things are turning around for the underdog.

The showman Top Dog is finally being exposed to the voters, and she, the little underdog that could, is going to work work work. Blah blah, story story, spin spin.

“Americans don’t need more promises,” she said. “They’ve heard plenty of speeches. They deserve solutions, and they deserve them now.”

As she spoke, the crowd responded with chants of “Yes, she will!” — apparently an orchestrated response to Mr. Obama’s trademark “Yes, we can!”

Turning one of Mr. Obama’s themes against him, she said, “Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality.”

This line of attack is working for her, and we can expect a lot more of it.

But I remind you there's another story:

HILLARY WAS NEVER THE UNDERDOG IN TEXAS AND OHIO.

For the past year, Hillary has shown a more or less 20 point-or greater lead in those states.

Yesterday, he lost Texas 48% to her 51%. He lost Ohio 44% to her 54%

So who's the fighting underdog with the more successful campagin? The candidate who in Texas, barely held onto her lead which was once so assured, or the one who closed a gap from 20 points to 3? The one who lost 10 points of her lead, or the one who closed the gap between himself and his opponent by 10 points?

Also, he is still ahead in delegates. If superdelegates are what win the Democratic nomination for her, please remember her campaign's current complaints about Texas:

Former HUD secretary and Hillary Clinton supporter Henry Cisneros excoriated Texas' arcane electoral process as "a great burden on voters" and said that losing the delegate count on Tuesday because of the state caucuses would be "exceedingly unfair."