Tsa`ah
02-21-2008, 01:22 AM
Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the ninth and tenth straight time last night, with blowouts in Wisconsin and Hawaii. Needless to say, this means nothing. As Clinton strategist Mark Penn explained yesterday, Wisconsin has a lot of independent voters, so it doesn't really matter. And Hawaii is practically Obama's home state, so it obviously doesn't matter. Anyway, as Penn said recently, "winning Democratic primaries is not a qualification or a sign of who can win the general election." It's apparently not even a sign of who can win the Democratic nomination — at least not when the victories are Obama's.
The Clinton spin machine has been consistent about this. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn't matter because they were deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn't matter because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington didn't matter because caucuses aren't truly representative. Maryland and Virginia didn't matter because Obama was expected to win there. For a moment, it looked like Missouri might matter when the networks called it for Hillary — her campaign quickly bragged about winning a "closely contested toss-up state" — but the networks were wrong. On the other hand, it looked like Nevada wasn't going to matter at all because there were polling stations in casinos, but it ended up huge because Hillary won.
It turns out that the only state Obama won that could have mattered was Illinois, his real home state; unfortunately, home-state victories don't really count, except when they take place in New York. "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states outside of Illinois?" Penn recently asked.
.... more (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714840,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics)
I think that's a pretty accurate summary of the Clinton campaign so far and I love the irony of playing off Obama wins as inconsequential. The irony being her attempt to subvert the system "legally" and "within" the rules of the DNC.
It gets better when you listen to conservative media figures who claim that Clinton is the better candidate of the two. They have jumped on the "more qualified" bandwagon. If you listen, watch, or read enough ... it's almost as if the GOP is endorsing Clinton.
Why?
Fear. Plain and simple fear.
Clinton has lost to Obama 24 times. Tossing out wins in FL and MI, that gives her 11 wins. An Obama/McCain matchup means McCain not only losing some of the republican vote, but a big chunk of the independent vote. That's something they don't have to worry about with Clinton. Obama won Missouri and Wisconsin .... both of which are very similar (demographically) to OH. If it comes down to swing states this election, things may very well swing away from the GOP when faced with Obama.
Then there's the rejection issues. Voters reject Clinton, something that plays in favor of the GOP. With only her name (as a contending candidate) on the MI ballot, she was only able to pull in 55% ... yet 40% of the vote was motivated enough to vote against her. In FL she rallied 50% of the vote. It's really a victory in either case when you phone in before the polls open to advertise a rally after the polls close. She did campaign to win a no-contest, even though she really didn't campaign in the sense that she broke the rules doing so.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP starts approaching delegates of both types on Clinton's behalf.
The Clinton spin machine has been consistent about this. Nebraska, Idaho and Utah didn't matter because they were deep-red states. South Carolina, Louisiana and Georgia didn't matter because they had large percentages of black voters. Maine and Washington didn't matter because caucuses aren't truly representative. Maryland and Virginia didn't matter because Obama was expected to win there. For a moment, it looked like Missouri might matter when the networks called it for Hillary — her campaign quickly bragged about winning a "closely contested toss-up state" — but the networks were wrong. On the other hand, it looked like Nevada wasn't going to matter at all because there were polling stations in casinos, but it ended up huge because Hillary won.
It turns out that the only state Obama won that could have mattered was Illinois, his real home state; unfortunately, home-state victories don't really count, except when they take place in New York. "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states outside of Illinois?" Penn recently asked.
.... more (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1714840,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics)
I think that's a pretty accurate summary of the Clinton campaign so far and I love the irony of playing off Obama wins as inconsequential. The irony being her attempt to subvert the system "legally" and "within" the rules of the DNC.
It gets better when you listen to conservative media figures who claim that Clinton is the better candidate of the two. They have jumped on the "more qualified" bandwagon. If you listen, watch, or read enough ... it's almost as if the GOP is endorsing Clinton.
Why?
Fear. Plain and simple fear.
Clinton has lost to Obama 24 times. Tossing out wins in FL and MI, that gives her 11 wins. An Obama/McCain matchup means McCain not only losing some of the republican vote, but a big chunk of the independent vote. That's something they don't have to worry about with Clinton. Obama won Missouri and Wisconsin .... both of which are very similar (demographically) to OH. If it comes down to swing states this election, things may very well swing away from the GOP when faced with Obama.
Then there's the rejection issues. Voters reject Clinton, something that plays in favor of the GOP. With only her name (as a contending candidate) on the MI ballot, she was only able to pull in 55% ... yet 40% of the vote was motivated enough to vote against her. In FL she rallied 50% of the vote. It's really a victory in either case when you phone in before the polls open to advertise a rally after the polls close. She did campaign to win a no-contest, even though she really didn't campaign in the sense that she broke the rules doing so.
At this point I wouldn't be surprised if the GOP starts approaching delegates of both types on Clinton's behalf.