Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The NYTimes on the Pennsylvania Primary

Pennsylvania Results

From the Official Pennsylvania State Department of Elections:

99.34% precincts reporting.


Candidate Votes Percent
CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)
1,237,696 54.3%
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)
1,043,174 45.7%


DON'T BELIEVE THE MSM LIE ABOUT A 10 POINT WIN FOR HER.

*************************************************

From The Field, comparing Obama's numbers in Ohio to Pennsylvania:

We’ll know more in the morning but it seems like the margin in Pennsylvania will be between 8 and 10 percentage points, which means:

Clinton’s margin among all voters in Ohio (10.5 percent) diminished by the time she got to Pennsylvania.

The margin among registered Democrats (a 14 percent lead in Ohio) diminished by at least 39 percent in Pennsylvania.

Among white registered Democrats (70 percent of them in Ohio) - the demographic that the pastor-bashing and bitter-posturing was aimed at - Senator Clinton lost 24 percent (down to 53 percent in Pennsylvania).

Among African-American registered Democrats (14 percent of them in Ohio) she lost 42 percent of her previous support (down to 8 percent in Pennsylvania).

All the posturing and negativity didn’t gain her a single yard.

In fact, Senator Clinton lost ground in every one of those key foundations of her former base vote.

Whether or not the commercial media spins it that way - in her campaign’s lexicon - “doesn’t matter.”

And ye shall know the dumbest and slowest - and intentionally dishonest - political reporters, pundits, bloggers (and former presidential candidates and spouses) by those that argue otherwise.


***********************************************************
From The New York Times (which endorsed Clinton for President):

April 23, 2008
Editorial
The Low Road to Victory



The Pennsylvania campaign, which produced yet another inconclusive result on Tuesday, was even meaner, more vacuous, more desperate, and more filled with pandering than the mean, vacuous, desperate, pander-filled contests that preceded it.

Voters are getting tired of it; it is demeaning the political process; and it does not work. It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.

If nothing else, self interest should push her in that direction. Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race. 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.

On the eve of this crucial primary, Mrs. Clinton became the first Democratic candidate to wave the bloody shirt of 9/11. A Clinton television ad — torn right from Karl Rove’s playbook — evoked the 1929 stock market crash, Pearl Harbor, the Cuban missile crisis, the cold war and the 9/11 attacks, complete with video of Osama bin Laden. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen,” the narrator intoned.

If that was supposed to bolster Mrs. Clinton’s argument that she is the better prepared to be president in a dangerous world, she sent the opposite message on Tuesday morning by declaring in an interview on ABC News that if Iran attacked Israel while she were president: “We would be able to totally obliterate them.”

By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.

No matter what the high-priced political operatives (from both camps) may think, it is not a disadvantage that Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton share many of the same essential values and sensible policy prescriptions. It is their strength, and they are doing their best to make voters forget it. And if they think that only Democrats are paying attention to this spectacle, they’re wrong.

After seven years of George W. Bush’s failed with-us-or-against-us presidency, all American voters deserve to hear a nuanced debate — right now and through the general campaign — about how each candidate will combat terrorism, protect civil liberties, address the housing crisis and end the war in Iraq.

It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign. If she is ever to have a hope of persuading these most loyal of Democrats to come back to her side, let alone win over the larger body of voters, she has to call off the dogs.

3 comments:

The Angry Independent said...

Great Editorial. Unfortunately, the Clinton camp has not been listening.

I wrote months ago that the Dems were headed for a trainwreck. It's basically too late to stop the trainwreck now. The only question at this point is how bad will the disaster be.

What was unthinkable a year ago, is now a very real possibility (perhaps as good as 50-50)-- that is... McCain sneaking into the back door of the White House. He can't start picking out drapes yet... but he can start thinking about color schemes, paint...or which desk he wants to use in the oval office.

Truthiz said...

I second the AI_Great Editorial!

But I too saw this "trainwreck" coming quite some time ago _during the lead up to the South Carolina primary, to be precise...and I wrote about it on another blog site that I also enjoy visitng.

The Clintons are Ruthlessly evil! But they're Masters at what they do_"pitbull" politics. Quite frankly they don't care how much damage they do to themselves or to the Democratic Party, as long as they defeat their "enemy"_in this case, Obama!

Meanwhile Obama is showing signs of some Weakness. The ABC "sham" was an Ambush in "debate" clothing. But the truthiz, Obama's performance STANK! There was NO reason for him not to have been better prepared. He should NOT assume he has this thing "locked-up (not after Rev. Wright and "bittergate")...because he doesn't!

I left the Democratic party 4 yrs ago and became a registered Independent because it became clear to me that there's practically NO difference between the two major parties.

The Dem party could go the way of the Whigs tomorrow for all I care. I just don't want to see a Black man be used as a friggin scapegoat for its demise!

And I agree_at this pont, George W. McCain has a REAL chance of winning the Presidency in November.

Anonymous said...

From Blacks4Barack...Regarding NEW STRATEGY !
CALL TODAY !!! Stress THE FACTS to DNC & SuperDelegates !(FACT IS: Clinton Has Lost ENTIRE BLACK VOTE !)

It is absolutely amazing how the media is spinning the Clinton victory in Pennsylvania.....regardless of the facts. First of all, although she was leading in the polls by over 22%, she won by 9.4%....not 'double digits' which sounds so much more like a blowout. Secondly, unless Hillary wins every remaining primary by 76% or more, it is absolutley mathematically impossible for her to catch Obama in the pledged delegate count. That's just a fact. Obama is leading in delegate count, number of states won and popular vote, even though now she has convinced some in the media to count the votes in Michigan and Florida to claim a lead in popular vote, although the fact is.....those states don't count.

While the media is dissecting the demographics, for some reason they keep leaving one verrrrry important statistic out of their breakdown. The Major Fact Is.....BILLARY HAS ALIENATED AND LOST THE ENTIRE BLACK VOTE ! Where's THAT fact ? And they have the gall to think that they can claim her to be more electable to superdelegates.......with close to zero black support......ARE THEY NUTS ???????? Hillary Clinton is the first democratic presidential nominee in modern day history to lose the entire black vote ! That, too, is a fact !

THE STRATEGY IS SIMPLE:

It is time for EVERYONE to contact the DNC and every superdelegate that we can trace and remind them that due to her own actions HILLARY HAS LOST THE ENTIRE BLACK VOTE ! How in the world could she and Bill have the nerve to claim more electabilty when they have lost an entire race of people....the very group that the Democratic Party has always been able to count on.

SPEAK OUT !!!!

TIME TO MAKE CALLS....SEND EMAILS....CALL RADIO TALK SHOWS....EVERY WAY YOU CAN THINK OF !!!!!! THEY MUST HEAR FROM US !!!!

Call The DNC TODAY at 202-863-8000 or contact them at Democrats.org.

This is in no way meant to be racial. We are all in this together....blacks, whites, young, old, rich and poor......working together for a better America. But the fact that Hillary Clinton (wife of 'The First Black President', who started this campaign with 82% of the black support)has lost the support of an entire race of people....is not only pitiful.....but should be made....a very well known FACT !

Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
(A Multi-Racial Organization...Dedicated To Truth !)

SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE !