criterion

Senator Hillary Clinton and her camp have thrown a ton of information at us. They would like us to believe that she is ahead in the popular vote. Okay. They would like us to believe that Clinton is more electable because she won more big states. Finally, we have been told that Clinton should be the democratic nominee because she has won states with a lot of electoral votes. Those are the arguments. Do you buy ’em?

Let’s start with the last argument first because it is the most ridiculous. Is there a Democrat alive that doesn’t believe that Obama will win at least 90 percent of the votes that Clinton got during this primary season? No real Democrat will be so upset that their candidate didn’t win that they would vote for a Republican, especially not after seven years of Bush. Nope, that ain’t going to happen. So, this is a terrible argument.

When did winning the big states become a criterion for the democratic nomination? How many big states do you need to win? How big does a state need to be before it is considered a “big” state? Is Montana a big state? How about Utah? I’m thinking that is just another McGuffin. As far as I know, when we started this process four to five months ago, the goal was to win delegates.

Also, Clinton has won the popular vote. This is the best bit of spin that we have been asked to swallow in a long time. Now, for us to do this mental gymnastics we must count the votes from Florida and Michigan. Remember that only Clinton was on the ballot in Michigan. We knew that Michigan and Florida would not be counted before this thing started. So, why all of sudden are we counting Florida and Michigan? It is because the Clinton camp knows that she can’t win the elected delegate count. These are the facts.

All of this spin and the negative ads have caused the good Senator’s own home state newspaper to begin to turn against her. The New York Times called Hillary Clinton’s tactics the low road to victory.