Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Please put your Pennsyls down

By Carl

The six week grind is done. Hillary won, fairly convincingly, too: ten point margin of victory, and a net gain (so far) of eight delegates.

The Obombers will spin this to imply that she actually lost, somehow, but the truth is, Obama still had a chance to put her away with a victory, and was unable to seal the deal. He has another chance in Indiana, which was solidly his just a few short weeks ago, but all indications are that it is now a dead heat, something no one would have imagined after his victories in Iowa, Wisconsin and of course, Illinois.

I'd wager if you re-ran Wisconsin at this point in time, he'd probably lose there, now.

Indiana will represent the fifth attempt by the Obama campaign to shut down Hillary Clinton. And it will be the fifth failure to do so, thus seriously damaging his claim to be someone who a) attracts new voters, b) can draw Republicans into his camp, and c) can unite the party behind him in the general election.

Tall orders for any candidate, much less an ethically-challenged man whose success is based on his close ties to the single most corrupt Democratic political machine since Tammany Hall in New York City in the 1800s!

Obama took seven, count 'em, seven of
Pennsylvania's 50-odd counties. If I'm the Clinton campaign, I'm asking superdelegates as well as convention rules committees to take a closer look at even states Obama has won hands down for the county breakdown. My sense is, if you broke the entire nation down, county-by-county, Hillary wins the lion's share of the counties across the nation.

The funniest quote of the night? From Barack Obama:
"After 14 long months, it's easy to forget what this campaign's about from time to time," Obama told an Evansville, Ind., rally, obliquely conceding that the Pennsylvania race turned nasty.

"It's easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics, the bickering that none of us are entirely immune to, and it trivializes the profound issues: two wars, an economy in recession, a planet in peril, issues that confront our nation. That kind of politics is not why we are here tonight. It's not why I'm here, and it's not why you're here."
Uh, OK, soooooooooooooooo, thennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn... why'd you do it?

Why did YOU raise the race card back in South Carolina? Why did YOU call Hillary on her "periodic blow ups"? Why did YOU throw the finger at her, twice, last week?

After claiming to be the uniter, you've proven yourself to be no better than any other politician in America.

This primary season is like a guy in a small-town bar. The bartender's good. He listens to you complain about your job, your home, making ends meet. He's rough around the edges, but that's what small town life, where you have to work hard to make ends meet, can do to a person. But he knows his liquors and can mix a mean Bloody Mary on a Sunday afternoon.

Then a new waitress is hired. College kid, fresh faced. Pretty speaking voice. Flirts well with you.

But hasn't even made a glass of ice water, and you might have to spot her the ice.

But she's got that "new kid" smell about her, and BAM!, you're flirting right back.

Does it surprise you that the bartender gets a bit upset at you? You've stopped tipping him for doing his job and started lavishing your attentions on the kid whose going to be gone after this semester.

America, welcome to Cheers, where nobody knows your name except the barkeep and they only want your money.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Labels: , , ,

Bookmark and Share


  • A couple of points:

    1) I'm an "Obomber," to use your rather derogatory word, am I not? And yet I acknowledged it was a big win for Hillary.

    2) There is no evidence that Hillary would win Wisconsin now. She is strong in Pennsylvania, just as she is strong in Ohio. Those are great states for her. Wisconsin is different.

    3) You argue here that Obama can't put Hillary away. Yes, yes, this is the latest spin, and it was all over the place last night. As I put it in my live-blogging post, however, Hillary is a strong candidate. She's winning states she should be winning. That's not Obama's fault, or a sign of some inherent weakness. He may lose Indiana and West Virginia, too, but he should win North Carolina and Oregon. Which means that he'll still be ahead in terms of pledged delegates. This is the way the primary season has played out. Both Obama and Hillary have won the states they should have won, based on demographics. It's just that Obama has won more states and more delegates.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:16 PM  

  • Wait... Obama's the one who's played dirty? Huh?

    Do you not remember the whole "kitchen sink" thing?

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 12:19 PM  

  • My, My, My ...

    All these silly goal post changes and extrapolations ...

    How many clouds were in the sky on the voting days? ... I'm sure there were more clouds in the sky on days Hillary won ...

    It is what it is - two strong candidates going toe-to-toe ... You can make the argument that Hillary, being a former First Lady, and longer in the Senate should be way ahead (as she believes it should be) and she isn't ...

    Someone, yesterday, I think it was Mike Barnicle, made a good observation, how the new product - Obama - basically has obliterated the long established product - Hillary - in roughly a years' time ... Not something you typically see in the marketplace ...

    It's over ... Time to move on to the General


    By Blogger 13909 Antiques, at 1:36 PM  

  • Carl,

    Are you going to vote for Obama over McCain when this all shakes out?

    Here's the difference between Obama and Clinton: Obama's running the race better than she is on the metrics that were decided on at the outset. She's making up metrics to pretend that she's really doing better. She got outplayed. The number of counties she won is absolutely immaterial, because that's not the metric by which success in this race is determined.

    I thought for sure you'd at least see some connection to reality at this point, Carl. I've still got hope for you, but it's fast receding.

    By Blogger Fargus..., at 2:11 PM  

  • The problem for Obama is not losing PA as a whole by 10 points, but rather what the exit polls show: he simply does NOT do well among whites. He lost by 26 among seniors (higher among white seniors), and by 32 among white women. Only a relatively small number of those people switching to McCain in the Fall likely gives McCain the Electoral College. If the superdelegates did their job, they ABSOLUTELY would nominate Hillary, but they're scared of rioting in the ghettos. A lousy economy will just add fuel to the fire. I think the satisfaction will have to come in huge congressional gains for the Democrats, which will render McCain all but ineffective.

    By Blogger QueersOnTheRise, at 2:50 PM  


    guess some of those votes mean absolutely bupkus to me. when you have limbaugh telling his listeners NOT to wear the operation chaos tshirts to go and 'crossover vote'- well, we see who's 'voting for clinton.' if you can't see that- i don't know what else to tell ya.

    By Blogger billie, at 3:37 PM  

  • Not 50 some, but 67 counties in Pennsylvania. Typical Clintonista math!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:05 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home