The Clintonistas Downplay Their Losses

Clinton's pollster  and strategist, Mark Penn, was partly blamed for her Iowa loss and her calculated actions based on polling data. Now he's dismissing recent polls that favor Obama over Clinton up against McCain. In this situation and others, people leave out important details. For example, this is old news about Obama beating McCain in the polls. In RealClearPolitics' averages, both Obama and Edwards did better against McCain than Clinton, and this happened months ago. 

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.