Penn goes on to say that the polls showed her losing in California and Massachusetts. Actually, Obama only beat her by a small margin in one poll out of the four most recent from Massachusetts. Penn is skewing the truth and trying to portray her as the underdog.
In her latest interview she downplays the significance of the red states Obama won since they're likely to be taken by the Republican nominee. Instead she emphasizes the the importance of big states like California. Isn't it safe to claim that no matter who the Democratic nominee is, he or she will take the liberal states of California, Massachusetts, and New York? I don't get her rationale.
Here's a blog I like that sums the Clintonistas' attitude towards Obama's wins: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/11/121758/950
I thought of the comparison between Obama and Jesse Jackson after Obama's South Carolina win. Bill didn't mention how Edwards won South Carolina in 2004. What he really wanted to say is that Obama won South Carolina because he's black.
2 comments:
Yeah, I actually agree completely. I think that New York and California are as blue as Texas is red, there's no real significance in arguing over who the liberal states like after their primaries, their electorates will go to whoever wins the nomination.
I definitely argue that California and New York are just as significant as the other states, but I think it is irresponsible for the Clinton Campaign to disregard the voters in states that don't vote for her. Although this nomination certainly is not yet settled, I worry that if she continues to falter, and it becomes obvious that Obama will be the nominee, she will not bow out gracefully, instead bringing the democratic party into an ugly and divisive fight. I hope I'm wrong.
Post a Comment