Hillary Clinton In The Land of "If Only"

[democracy1st]

Hillary Clinton In The Land of "If Only"


As the Clinton campaign continues to grasp at straws for a reason to persuade the superdelegates that she would be a better candidate to run against John McCain in November, they have come up with their latest version of the "if only" strategy. But this time it appears she is making Barack Obama’s case stronger instead of her own.

From today’s New York Daily News:

"Obama owes his first-place standing to the millions of independents and Republicans who voted for him in states that allowed them to participate in the Democratic nominating contest, the News found.

Clinton would top Obama by more than 360,000 votes if only Democrats were counted, and the delegate race - which Obama leads by 135 - would likely be tighter."

Harold Ickes, a devoted Clinton Kool-Aid drinker, put it this way;

"For those superdelegates who are increasingly questioning pulling power in a general election, I think what this will do is reinforce the argument that she has a stronger base among broad Democratic constituencies that we need absolutely to win."

The article also mentions that "if only" Michigan and Florida were counted, Hillary’s lead would be more than 900,000.

Two weeks ago Hillary’s reasoning was that "if only" Democratic primaries were held under Republican winner-take-all rules, she would be the leader by virtue of her victories in the big states and Obama’s wins in smaller states.

Speaking of that, Mrs. Clinton has made a point that she wins the states that Democrats need in the fall, while Obama carries states that are going to vote Republican no matter what. In light of that argument it seems strange that she is fighting so hard for, and putting so much emphasis on, North Carolina and Indiana. A Democrat has not carried North Carolina in a presidential election since Carter in ‘76. Indiana has not gone into the Democratic column since Johnson in ‘64.

But I digress, back to the original premise of the argument that she has stronger support among Democrats. Doesn’t that make Obama’s point that he would be stronger in the general election because of his crossover appeal to Independents and Republicans? I think it would be a good idea for the Clinton campaign to drop this latest "if only" before the Obama people turn it around and use it as a weapon against Hillary.

Based on Sen. Clinton’s logic, I think Mitt Romney has an argument to the Republican Party. "If only" crossover Democrats and Independents had not been allowed to vote in Republican primaries, he would be the nominee instead of John McCain. Ah, the land of "if only", what a wonderful place.

http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=desperado&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdesperadoPost%3A4429c439-36fa-4eb9-9367-61ad56756640

[FARAFIELD]

1. "if Only Hillary was a better candidate she would be winning"

She is gone in the head... officially. My mom and dad havent voted for a Dem in a primary since 1968 (RFK) and for a Dem in a general since carter. And they went out in the ice (well actually they got a ride) to caucus for OBAMA, if my mom says she will vote for OBAMA but not Hillary (my parents cant stand mccain either). There is something to that. He will bring our red state numbers UP, something she CANT and WONT do thats clear.

[CTyankee]

2. As the saying goes, the only poll that really counts is the one on Nov. 4.

I've given up worrying about it. What will be, will be. My state voted in its primary so I am just a bystander, watching the drama unfold.

I'm looking forward to release of David Sirota's new book "The Uprising" which promises to be another "What's the Matter with Kansas?" .