We've all heard some version of the Mark Penn quote from the Clinton campaign by now, "Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama."

Penn said that in mid-February.  Since then it has been modified and expanded on by the Clinton team.

They have told us things like the states Obama won were full of latte-sipping liberals...exactly what comes to mind when I think of the people of Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming and Alabama.  They have also built on Penn's original quote by implying that if he didn't win a certain primary he is incapable of winning that state in the general election.  This of course, is absurd.

Unless the political equivalent of "The Big One" hits California before this fall, John McCain is not going walk away with California's 54 electoral votes, regardless of who the Democratic nominee becomes.

As is the pattern with most of Clinton's claims regarding where she stands in this election, this one has nothing to do with reality.

John Kerry won 19 states plus Washington D.C. in 2004.  Presumably, these are the "must-wins" the Clinton Campaign speaks of for a Democrat this November.

Of those 19, Barack Obama has won eleven, Hillary Clinton has won six, and two are yet to vote.  If the Michigan is counted, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot, Hillary gets seven states.  So the scorecard says Obama over Clinton 11-6 (maybe 11-7), with two to go.

Clinton's six states in this category are California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.  With the exception of New Hampshire, none of these states have voted for a Republican for President since 1988, when the Democrats nominated Michael Dukakis.  

McCain may put up tough fights in New Jersey and New Hampshire, but he will not win, or even seriously compete in the other four.

If we put aside logic and reason for a moment, and we choose to accept the fuzzy math and bizarre thinking of the Clinton Team, we will see there are some consequences for her side as well.

According to the if-you-don't-win-the-primary-you-don't-carry-it-in-the-general-election doctrine, since Hillary lost Democratic strongholds, Maryland, Washington D.C., Delaware and Illinois, she will not win them against John McCain in the fall. This is clearly a ridiculous argument.

If hell froze over on Nov. 3^rd, the Democrats would still win Illinois by a half a point on the 4^th.  And the same goes for D.C., California and New York.

What this argument from the Clinton Campaign represents is the epitome of the status-quo in the Democratic Party.  It is thoughts like these, pushed on loyal Democrats by people like Mark Penn and Terry McAuliffe, that keep delivering large electoral victories to the Republicans.

It is time for a change.   

The 2006 midterm elections showed us just that, when mercifully, those of us who call ourselves Democrats got a break from Terry McAuliffe. 

McAuliffe had recently (2005) been replaced as chairman of the DNC by Howard Dean.  And McAuliffe, who did nothing but lose elections during his tenure as the DNC chair, watched from the sidelines as his successor took back the House and the Senate in November of 2006.

Honestly, Mr. McAuliffe, Mr. Penn, Mrs. Clinton, the spin isn't working anymore.  You learned this type of nonsense from watching the Bush Administration.  And you're right, it worked for them for a long time, but the American people are on to it now.  They are fed up with it. 

You guys are starting to embarrass yourselves and it is time you listened to your old friend Gov. Richardson and accept that "it is time...for the Democrats to stop fighting amongst ourselves and prepare for the tough fight we will have against John McCain in the fall."

Support Eyes On Obama!

Back to Blogs