Here's food for thought: What does it say when you out spend your opponent 3 to 1... and still lose? What does it say when the media has already anointed you the nominee and has counted out your opponent for over two months now...and you still lose? What does it say when you've been given numerous opportunities to put your opponent away (New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania)...and you lose every time?
Does anyone ever stop and ask themselves the above questions? Seriously, Obama had everything going for him --- money, time, the media --- and he still can't put Hillary Clinton away. Regardless of the final margin of victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania, the fact that she still won, despite all the odds, is a real testament to her strength as a candidate (or is it Obama's lack of strength).
And now the race moves on to Indiana and North Carolina. Obama will win North Carolina, and he should do so extremely conformably. The true battle ground is now Indiana. Again, Obama has all the advantages---money, time, media, and he's from a neighboring state. Harold Ford Jr., a high ranking Democratic Party official, really had a great take on the Indiana primary on MSNBC just a few minutes ago. He pointed out that Obama needs to win it --- not because he needs the delegates or the popular votes, but rather as a matter to show that he can still win in states that are not his "base" states. North Carolina is an Obama base state, as is Oregon. The same can be said about Kentucky and West Virginia for Clinton. But, as Ford alluded to, Indiana is, more or less, neutral territory. The question will be answered, based on the Indiana results, if Obama is limited to his base states. If he can't win Indiana, Ford analyzed that it is a bad sign for Obama in the eyes of the undecided superdelegates, and I agree. Exactly how much time, money, and states does Obama need to put Clinton away? If he can't do it in Indiana, he can't do it --- period.
So, in conclusion, I would like to congratulate Sen. Clinton on her hard fought victory in Pennsylvania. Tomorrow, it's on to Indiana, and then on May 6, this all begins again.
(P.S.: Clinton agreed to debate in North Carolina; Obama rejected. Is he scared? Obviously so.)
6 comments :
Ten Things to Remember on Tuesday Night
Hillary Clinton will win Pennsylvania.
Arguments over the meaning or meaninglessness of her win will dominate MSM and stretch bandwidth to its breaking point. Bloggers and pundits will dust off their favorite boxing metaphors: "Hillary's off the ropes!" "Obama can't land the knockout!" Hillbots will rejoice, Obamabots will panic, and McCainbots will watch Murder She Wrote and go to bed at six-thirty. I'll probably write a scathing post attempting to prove that Hillary is the devil incarnate. We'll all lose our minds.
In hope of preventing some of this hysteria (especially my own), I thought it'd be helpful to keep a few things in mind during Tuesday night's results -- from Hillary's "victory" speech to the blizzard of spin that's sure to follow:
1. Remember that there's no way Hillary can become the nominee without a superdelegate coup -- which would alienate a generation of young Democrats and dangerously fracture the party.
2. Remember that her campaign leaked internals showing an eleven point lead (as a means of firing up her supporters and getting out the vote). Therefore, any win smaller than eleven points should be considered a disappointment by her own assessment.
3. Remember that every time Hillary begins a sentence with "you know," or "my opponent," the next thing out of her mouth is a lie.
4. Remember that when Clinton surrogates say "this proves Obama can't win the big states," they're ignoring the fact that he actually won more delegates in Texas -- not to mention twice as many states as she has.
5. Remember that when the pundits argue that Obama can't win in white rural areas because they broke for Hillary, they're ignoring the fact that he won (in alphabetical order): Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
6. Remember that when Hillary talks about who will be "better against John McCain in the fall," she's talking about the fall of 2012.
7. Remember that Hillary's campaign is $10M in debt, while Obama's has more than $40M in cash on hand.
8. Remember that Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania was as high as 26 points only a month ago.
9. Remember that Hillary's late Pennsylvania rebound was forged in the fires of negativity and fear-mongering.
10. Remember that the only manufacturing job Hillary ever brought to Pennsylvania was the manufactured notion that she was a middle-class, whisky-swilling duck killer, and not an anti-union multi-millionaire.
(P.S.: Clinton agreed to debate in North Carolina; Obama rejected. Is he scared? Obviously so.)
............
Perhaps if they actually had substantive debates instead of the typical Washington politics "gotcha" questions. If they agreed to ask PERTINENT campaign issues such as health care, the Iraqi War, future free trade pacts, global warming, the economy, oil prices, etc... instead of using the two hours as a means of smearing the candidates by McCarthyist "guilt by association", Obama might agree to a debate. After the ABC debacle, I see no reason that he should agree to another debate.
I see where the bottom line to all the primaries is still forgotton, especially by journalists and those who are looking to find fault. Everyone should take a lesson from our democratic system and the bottom line. It goes like this. "It ain't over till its over" so get a life regardless what your opinion is. Just remember, while the democratic primaries are still in progress, John McCain does not get any attention that really matters.
Hillary and Her True Believers
by P.M. Carpenter
Yes, for Democrats everywhere, here are some of the joyous headlines this morning from coast to coast: The New York Times, "The bruising will go on for the party"; The Washington Post, "Contest goes on and on"; and The Los Angeles Times, "Clinton's victory doesn't do much for her odds" -- nevertheless see headlines one and two.
Pennsylvania came in last night largely as expected, and now the race will go on as expected -- accomplishing nothing but the solidification of John McCain's growing advantages, courtesy Democrats.
Mass suicidal behavior may be rare in the human species, but at election time, it seems to come naturally to a whole lot of Dems. It's a sociopsychological riddle that may never be solved. Still, at the rate Democrats are going, that may soon become more of a historical curiosity than a matter of contemporary resolution. Because if they can't unite to win in 2008, then they can't ever win, period -- and the party deserves to just fade away like an old soldier.
I heard a statistic last night on MSNBC's coverage that may solve at least part of the riddle, though. I don't have a link to any polling organization to back this up, because I didn't hear what organization polled it, but I heard it clearly, there was no mistaking it. And it was this: Four out of five Clinton supporters believe this primary race is still roughly even, still contestable, still winnable by Hillary.
That's scary, as well as depressing, since it's reminiscent of all those Bush supporters who, despite all the evidence in the news indicating otherwise, persisted in their beliefs that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 and that he did indeed harbor weapons of mass destruction on the eve of our invasion. Nothing could shake them. They believed, because their man had told them to believe. And the proportion among Republicans who actually did believe that drivel, as I recall, was roughly four out of five.
Go ahead, laugh at the Republicans for their cherished mass delusions. But keep in mind that they haven't added mass suicide to their psychological decay. When it comes to elections, they recognize reality when they see it.
Not so for nearly half of the Democratic Party, four-fifths of whom appear lashed to the demented hopes of a narcissistic wrecking ball.
Her self-fulfilling prophecies -- always previewed by the prophetess with a sickening innocence -- have already become legend. "Considering his financial advantage, the question ought to be, why can’t he close the deal?" asked Mrs. Clinton yesterday. "Why can’t he win in a state like this?"
The sociocultural answers to that question -- which Mrs. Clinton understands and exploits better than anyone, of course -- are far too multifaceted and complicated to cover here. But leaving those to the political psychologists, paradoxically the deepest answer of all, as it turns out, is actually the most superficial one -- and it came last night in the form of that four-fifths statistic: Clinton supporters really believe their candidate still has a shot at the nomination.
Merely at her behest they have somehow mentally blocked the profound realities of Obama's insurmountable lead in all the electoral metrics, as well as conveniently forgotten that their candidate has the highest negatives of any presidential prospect in the polling history of the republic. These are, literally, historic -- and crushing -- negatives, which Mrs. Clinton happily continues to mount.
Not only that, her supporters seem to be in vast denial about the near absolute certainty of a Clinton loss to John McCain in the general, since she would have only a fraction of her party enthusiastically behind her and virtually none of the new or independent voters that Obama has inspired.
Their denial is stunning, downright breathtaking and most of all, just plain sad and not a little embarrassing. I didn't know till last night of the statistical evidence behind the striking similarities in delusional thinking that bridge Bush's supporters with Clinton's. Welcome to democracy, where rationality and what's best for the nation always take a back seat to blind partisan passions.
Fortunately, Sen. Obama has more confidence in this democracy racket than I, hence he is plowing ahead with the hope of electoral rationality firmly in mind: "Mr. Obama only mentioned Mrs. Clinton by name once in his remarks at a rally [in Indiana] late Tuesday night, when he congratulated her on winning the Pennsylvania primary. He referred to Mr. McCain seven times, a pointed reminder to Democrats of the challenge that lies ahead."
Challenge? Mr. McCain? Is there some other election coming up that we weren't aware of? Come on, Mr. Obama, we're having too much fun flushing the nation's future down the toilet to be bothered with such eventual trivialities. And now, Mrs. Clinton, you get back out there and relaunch, once again, your party's destruction.
Sounds like anonymous and P.M. Carpenter fell off the wagon. I hope they did not hurt themselves. The only thing worse that George Bush with a 28% approval rating is John McCain and any other conservative. They really have a sad problem.
Argo said...
Sounds like anonymous and P.M. Carpenter fell off the wagon. I hope they did not hurt themselves. The only thing worse that George Bush with a 28% approval rating is John McCain and any other conservative....
Which would include Hillary Rodham Clinton. NAFTA, kicking single Mothers off of welfare, increasing unbridled government interference in our lives, invoking executive privilege over non-security issues, private, closed door policy meetings with influencial donors, voting for the continued use of cluster bombs and land mines, promoting and voting for an illegitimate war of aggression, the largest war industry beneficiary of ANY presidential candidate of either party, endorsed by many of the far right newspapers, aided by Rupert Murdoch fundraisers, friends of FAUX NEWS... George W. Bush? NO. BIll and Hillary Clinton!!!
Post a Comment