On this, the morning of the sour grape, some Obamaphiles have said that Hillary won in PA because of cross-over Republicans who want her to be the nominee.
It's not true. First, PA is not a party-hopper primary state. Second, Republicans now understand that Obama is the weaker nominee. Third, Hillary won the hard-core Dems; Obama appeals to independents.
Maureen Dowd has assailed her readers with a truly epic misperception:
The Democrats are eager to move on to an Obama -McCain race. But they can't because no one seems to be able to show Hillary the door.Dowd has decided that she has the right to define what constitutes a "Democrat."
Hillary Clinton has nosed ahead in the popular vote among Democrats (if we count MI and FL, as I think we ought). She is ahead in most of the states that actually vote Democratic in the Fall. Although Obama has decisively won African Americans, Clinton appeals to all of the other core Democratic constituencies -- the elderly, the working class, Hispanics. Outside of the black vote, Obamaphiles tend to be cappuccino-sipping hipster wanna-bes and spoiled brat college kids who pay $100 a pop for designer t-shirts.
Go here to visit Maureen's home:
The 1819 building was the first Maureen Dowd saw when she went house-hunting in 1995, and she fell for it immediately. There were the classic Georgetown details, including the six fireplaces, the wood floors, a pocket-size backyard, and what seemed like an endless number of rooms—two parlors, a den, a formal dining room, and three bedrooms.Yet she claims to speak on behalf of the Democrats. Mere workers do not count.
The Grey Lady misperceives, in a big way.
It is true that Senator Barack Obama outspent her 2-to-1. But Mrs. Clinton and her advisers should mainly blame themselves, because, as the political operatives say, they went heavily negative and ended up squandering a good part of what was once a 20-point lead.2-to-1? Here's the truth:
Taking the commonly bandied about number of $11 million spent in Pennsylvania, with a vote haul (from the NYT) of 1,035,230, Obama spent an average of $10.63 for each vote received.That's closer to four-to-one by my reckoning.
Taking Hillary's expenditure amount of $3 million, with a vote count of 1,249,936, Hillary spent an average of $2.40 for each vote received.
The idea that Hillary Clinton has gone negative is absurd. The NYT conveniently forgets the entire "Clintons-as-racists" smear that was engineered by the Obama campaign. That smear was, for me, the deal-breaker. If we count the progblogs as Obama surrogates -- and we should -- then Obama has run the smeariest smear campaign in the history of smear-dom.
As James Wolcott puts it:
Shorter New York Times editorial:Can we get the progblogs to quiddit awready with their crap about how much the dreaded MSM hates Barack and luvs Hill?
Hillary Clinton's ruthless insistence on winning big-state primaries with traditional Democratic voters only hastens and strengthens the case that she drop out of the race and let Barack Obama finish his waffle.
No. Quit it they will not. People believe what they want to believe.
9 comments:
"That's closer to four-to-one by my reckoning." --Joe Cannon
"Math is hard." -- Barbie
This campaign is the only historical-cultural phenomenon that can rival the 1986 MLB post-season contests, both leagues, all four teams. The quality is sublime. Too bad it has to end.
Hey, if Barry is genuine and authentic, he'll agree that Hillary's late-inning rally ought to offset his March heavy delegate scoring.
Hey, pledged delegates aren't contractual, and they don't have to be as genuine, authentic, and ethical as the candidates; in truth, they're several notches less promissory than Presidential Electors from the states. It's still a free country!
I cannot believe you are giving the Dowd woman so much attention. I went to the link and saw Maria and Oprah and understand the dribble over BHO.
Dowd is to be ignored. She, like Ann Coulter, Peggy Noonan, Gloria Borger, and Cokie Roberts make their bones in grammer school. They don't change and the best way to deal with them is to act as if they just don't exist. Attention even if it's negative is what they thrive on.
You have a successful site and a wonderful following. Don't sweat the small stuff!
Karen KB
I re-registered as an Indy now so I don't have to be near people Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy etc...
Axelrod claimed this morning that Obama don't need white working voters. Obama supporters are calling people white trash/racists all the time.
The democratic party is gone forever.
"Can we get the progblogs to quiddit awready with their crap about how much the dreaded MSM hates Barack and luvs Hill?
"No. Quit it they will not. People believe what they want to believe."
So why spend much time reading them or railing against them?
Pennsylvania became the bellweather state of 2008 last night. Obama won in the cities of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh - not to be confused with Allegheny County in general.
Calling the rest of the voters bitter white trash was very helpful, as it turns out.
Kim in PA
"People believe what they want to believe!"
No truer words have been spoken on this blog!
"Republicans now understand that Obama is the weaker nominee."
A 527 is going to run an ad featuring Rev. Wright in the next primary states(a weak protest by McCain not withstanding), in order to weaken Obama's support. If Hillary was the strongest Candidate, wouldn't the Republicans(and the 527 pro-repubs) be going after her?
Do you think that M Dowd or N Ephron or M Moore decide who Democrats vote for( NYT vs far left vs HasB HollyW)?....What...Whooo??
And then there are MI and FL. The MATH gets very confusing all of a sudden(What part of dis-qualified Don't You Understand).
"The idea that Hillary Clinton has gone negative is absurd."
No Kidding, That is ABSURD.
Color me CRAZY.... guess I had too much "COOLAID", or else....DID YOU?
Beeeeeta...
I've seen that ad. It is directed at the down-ticket candidates, who endorsed Obama. It's not an Obama/Clinton thing. The idea is they are trying to convey is that Obama is now radioactive -- "You don't want to vote for anyone who is nywhere near this guy."
The fact that such an ad exists for THAT purpose proves my point. Proves wht I have said all along. We've not seen the end of the Wright business -- his usefulness has just begun. Obama is not just a sure loser in and of himself -- the Republicans think that any proximity to Obama is going to hurt OTHER candidates.
This guy just may end up losing the Senate.
And yes, it IS absurd to say that Hillary has gone negative. She has been sweetness and light compared to the ravings of The Cultists.
Just that fact can tell you something. I can now use "The Cultists" in a political context and everyone I talk to knows immediately what I'm talking about. Actual conversation:
"So" (I am asked) "Who do you think is going to win this year?"
"I don't know," I reply, "but the Cultists really have me pissed off."
"Yeah, the Obama guys are getting freaky..."
(Not word for word, but a dialogue like unto that really did occur.)
Believe what you will, and you don't have to believe that Hillary is as vicious, unconscionable, and hypocritical as they come, even if she is all that. (So was Her Majesty Elizabeth R.) She explains her association with Richard Mellon Scaife by saying she "believes in redemption" while trying to condemn the anti-war movement of the 1960s/1970s to hell by smearing former (and unrepentant) Weather Underground member William Ayers. The upside, at long last (Mr. Welch), is that she has "no sense of decency" left to lose, which explains her ruthlessness. Just a guess: if she loses, she'll have her psychopathic husband and his 'Three Strikes' (from George Wallace's playbook) to blame.
Post a Comment