Today, Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island are voting in the Democratic primaries. The media has, correctly, played it as the last stand of Hillary Clinton’s campaign against Barack Obama’s increasing momentum. With 11 straight defeats, if she cannot emerge after today as the overall winner, both in terms of delegates and popular votes, it is unlikely her campaign will be able to continue. Although Clinton herself has shown little, if any, indication she will leave the race, rumor has it that a large contingent of her staff will resign en masse tomorrow if she does not win both Ohio and Texas. Like the Final Four, this is truly “win or go home” for Clinton.

Polls show that she leads Ohio by a small margin, by around 5 percent, and that Texas is a tossup. Texas, however, has a complicated “hybrid” primary caucus system, which will give an edge to Obama due to his prior dominance in all of the caucus states except New Mexico. If Clinton wins Ohio and Obama wins Texas, the day will likely be a draw overall in terms of delegates, but it will not be enough for Clinton to secure the nomination. She has not won one state in one month — an eternity in the primary season — while Obama has won 11. At this point, his winning streak may already be unstoppable.

If Clinton cannot win convincingly today, she needs to bow out of the race for the good of the Democratic Party. One of the golden rules of politics is that the party comes first. A protracted and divisive nomination fight, extending into late April, when Pennsylvania votes, or even beyond, would greatly damage the Democrats’ momentum as the race continues into the fall. John McCain is a real challenge who cannot be considered lightly — a unified party will be necessary for a victory in November, both for the White House and for Congress. All Congressional candidates know that their chances of victory will be influenced by the presidential race; a strong, legitimate nominee helps them.

A Clinton victory based on superdelegates would be morally illegitimate (although technically legitimate), but, unless she can stage another miracle comeback like New Hampshire, it seems to be the only way she could win. Although the primary system has many flaws, a Clinton victory based on party insiders would not only keep Democrats at home, but it would also give John McCain and the Republican National Committee another angle from which to attack her. If Clinton wins because of superdelegates, she risks alienating the thousands of new voters, and donors, who have entered the party because of Obama.

The Democratic primary system was not designed to sustain a two-person horserace in what is now its third month. It was designed to pick a winner quickly, pull the party elders behind the winner, and move forward into the general election — John Kerry won Iowa and never looked back. This two-person contest, however, is now on the verge of hurting the party, rather than helping it through an honest debate of ideas. Both candidates must remember that the object is not the nomination, but the presidency. The two months of sleepless nights will only continue for another eight.

Clinton has waged a strong but flawed campaign, especially in large states like California and Massachusetts. One wonders what would have happened if Bill Clinton hadn’t become too involved before the South Carolina primary, where African-American voters turned away from the Clintons. After South Carolina, the primaries became a rhetorical referendum of the Clinton Years — eight years of divisive politics, the Republican Revolution and Monica Lewinsky. Perhaps Hillary Clinton could have won on her own merits, as she did in New Hampshire, with an impressive Senate record. She proved that winning on her husband’s was far more difficult.

Stuart already knows the results of the primaries. He’s sad. Comfort him at sbaimel "at" stanford.edu.