Backwards and in high heels
I’ve been watching politics since 1972. And this is the first campaign I’ve ever seen where winning wasn’t enough. I’m using, of course, the quaintly old-fashioned definition of winning, which means “getting more votes than your opponent.”
The new-fashioned definition of winning, as applied exclusively to Hillary Clinton, means something like “getting n more votes than Obama, where n represents an unattainably high number extracted from the asses of the media/Blogger Boyz in order to make sure that Barry is never seen to be losing.”
This morning the LA Times did its bit with an article helpfully entitled, “What to look for in the Pennsylvania primary.” (A pony?) Bottom line: unless Hillary wins by at least 10%, she will have lost!
How did they come up with 10%? It’s simply the biggest number they think they can get away with. In the past n for Pennsylvania has been much higher — I’ve seen 20, 30% bandied about — but that figure’s been reduced by the fact that everybody knows Barry’s spending something like a quadrillion dollars a day on campaign ads. The ass-extractors have got to at least give a nod in that direction in order to maintain credibility with the other ass-extractors. So now we’re down to 10%.
The Obama campaign/mainstream media/Blogger Boyz consortium has been spinning this kind of nonsense for so many months now that it’s started to seem normal. But it’s not normal. Sure, analyzing the strength of a particular win to gauge a candidate’s overall potential is standard practice, but that’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that no matter how many states Hillary wins, no matter how many BIG states she wins (all of them at this count), no matter how many times she wins despite extravagant outspending by the Obama campaign (two to one three to one in Pennsylvania, I think), it’s never enough.
These aren’t just Clinton Rules. Clinton — the male one — was in Obama’s situation early in 1992. He lost New Hampshire, but it was still counted as the political equivalent of a win because he didn’t lose too badly.
No, these are Hillary Rules. She’s the first serious candidate for President to get this treatment, to have her entire string of wins counted as losses because they weren’t big enough wins. She’s also the first serious candidate for President who’s also a woman. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Backwards and in high heels, folks. Backwards and in high heels.
11 Responses to “Backwards and in high heels”
-
anna says:
Hillary cannot convince the superdelegates to vote for her if she has less pledged delegates and loses the popular vote. The only way for her to defeat Obama on either of these (since Florida and Michigan are out of the picture) is to win by double-digits in PA.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm EST -
Rich says:
“since Florida and Michigan are out of the picture”
Thanks to Obama’s friends. How’s Obama going to win a general election after being gleeful that voters in battleground states were disenfranchised?
When he gets beat in November, he’ll be able to blame it on Hillary not dropping out in time. It’s always a woman’s fault. All started with that Eve!
-
Gayle says:
Ten Percent?
Where have you been? KO and Chris Matthews just said anything less than twenty percent is a loss for her.
I’m waiting for them to up that!!
-
Violet says:
Ah, well, they’re off the ranch. The LA Times tried to set a more moderate tone with the 10% this morning but clearly the MSNBC Boyz can’t stay inside the lines.
-
Adorable Girlfriend says:
Tag, IN and NC — you are it!
PA came in with the win and 7 super Ds.
What an exciting night for PA and Philadelphia!!
-
Violet says:
Over at MyDD one of the Axelbots in the comments immediately started the spin: “It’s time to face the fact that Hillary failed tonight.”
It would be funny if not for the distinct possibility that these clowns will destroy the party and lose us the election.
-
octogalore says:
From CNN: “If Clinton wins by more than 10 points, which was her margin in neighboring Ohio and New Jersey, her campaign will have new momentum and she will soldier on,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst.”
So… pretty much there. And yes, despite the heels!
CNN also said “6 percent [of voting Democrats] said they would stay home in a race between McCain and Clinton” vs “Ten percent of Democrats said they would sit on their hands in a McCain-Obama race.” The numbers are 11% vs 15% for Dems actually voting for McCain over Clinton vs McCain over Obama.
With this tight a race, hopefully some of the supers are paying attention to this. Otherwise, hello John McC.
-
YAB says:
“backwards and in high heels”
Weird. That’s the exact same thought I had when the results came in.
Given the enormously widespread (TV, Web, magazines, newspapers) support for Obama combined with the equally widespread vicious attacks on Hillary, her performance in this race is truly incredible.
-
K.A. says:
Yahoo news is worthless, but here is the latest headline:
In the News
As of 5:27 p.m. EDT
• Clinton’s win still leaves her the underdog
’08 election newsUppity bitch has to be put in her place no matter what the victory, whereas Obama, from the beginning, never had the media pitching every headline by spinning it to put him down when he was the one struggling.
At least “underdog” has positive connotations, though I’m sure they would put “underbitch” if they could get away with it.
-
No Blood for Hubris says:
Sigh.
-
Sam-I-Am says:
I just discovered your blog, and I have to say,
I love you.
I love you!
OMG, I love you!
So hard to be a Clinton supporter in the face of the weird Obamania, always so reminiscent to me of the bizarre baseless support for W in 2004.
Anyway, I love you. ;)
