Clinton electoral myths debunked!!!

By KIRSTEN POWERS





SLIDES = new slideshow("SLIDES");
SLIDES.timeout = 5000;
SLIDES.prefetch = -1;
SLIDES.repeat = true;
s = new slide();
s.src = "/seven/02072008/photos/oped037a.jpg";
s.text = unescape("Tuesday's real winner: Clintonite spin obscures Obama's surge.");
s.link = "/seven/02072008/photos/oped037a.jpg";
s.target = "";
s.attr = "";
s.filter = "";
SLIDES.add_slide(s); if (false) SLIDES.shuffle();


Tuesday's real winner: Clintonite spin obscures Obama's surge.










February 7, 2008 -- IT'S the spin, stupid.
Most news outlets were ef fectively spun into reporting Super Tuesday's Democratic results as a "split" with no clear winner. Hats off to the Clinton campaign for that - because it belies reality.
In Tuesday's primary contest, Barack Obama won 13 states, Hillary Clinton eight. Obama also racked up slightly more delegates, according to NBC News' tally - which also put the popular vote at a virtual tie.
The Clinton campaign hasn't accepted this call but admits that the candidates will be separated by just a handful of delegates at best.
In a conference call yesterday with reporters, chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn hailed Hillary's supposedly big Super Tuesday and debunked what he called a series of "myths" about the Democratic primaries. Then he made up some of his own.
Topping the list was his claim that Hillary "bounced back" last night. Nonsense.
Clinton was long favored for Super Tuesday, the last week of Obama media hysteria notwithstanding. Obama's coming close to her, let alone beating her among delegates, is a win for him.
In the weeks before the vote, she saw massive leads of 20 to 25 points across the country diminish as he closed the gap. But she was still up in most of the toss-up states in the days before the primary.
California was a big win for her, but hardly a surprise. The surprise would've been if she'd lost.
Clinton hasn't "bounced back" as much has she has held on. Over time, she's lost African American support to Obama. Late last year, an October CNN poll had Clinton leading Obama among registered black Democrats 57 percent to 33 percent. On Tuesday, he won 82 percent of the black vote.
Her overall support among women has also dropped. Exit polls say she won women overall by only six points, 51-45.
But she has tenaciously held on to a loyal coterie of white women (who make up a significant portion of Democratic primary voters) and Latinos. Clinton won white women by 24 points on Tuesday. This could be her winning coalition - if she keeps them energized.
But Obama continues to attract new types of voters. He has grown among whites, even pulling 40 percent of Georgia's white vote. (He won 52 percent of white men there.) This was a significant jump from the 24 percent of the white vote he won in South Carolina.
He also picked up 44 percent of the Latino vote in Arizona and won it with 52 percent in Illinois. Nowhere is Clinton picking up 40-plus percent of any core Obama demographic.
In another myth foisted on the media yesterday, Penn branded Obama as the "establishment candidate." He's no more that than he was the "black candidate."
Remember when Clinton was the presumed nominee and Obama was a new US senator who most recently hailed from the Illinois Legislature? It wasn't that long ago. Clinton was an international celebrity, and Obama was, in Washington parlance, a nobody.
Clinton was proud of her establishment support. It's why she's leading with super delegates and racked up key endorsements from elected officials in state after state.
She came into the race with every advantage: name recognition, good will toward the Clintons (her husband has an 80 percent approval rating among Democrats) and an extensive fund-raising network. She's been on the national Democratic scene almost 20 years.
But "establishment" has become an epithet in this campaign. "Change" is the buzzword, and everyone wants to claim it.
In exit polls Tuesday night, about half of Democrats across the country said they want a candidate who'll change things. Obama continued to dominate here, getting about two-thirds of that vote.
Finally, Penn suggested that Obama sounded too negative in his speech the previous evening.
So, just to summarize: Obama's the establishment candidate. He's negative. And Hillary's the underdog. Seriously.

keen

let's be fair.I heard Senator Clinton congratulated Senator Obama for his victory Tuesday night.The tone of her speech was that of defeated warrior to the point I was disappointed for her lack of combativity.I had the impression that Senator Clinton had realized that the momentum is no longer in her camp.

I predicted before the beginning of the electoral process that the democratic party had chosen the wrong candidates.With the withdrawal of Mitt Romney and the confirmation of Senator Mac Cain as the republican nominee I seriously doubt the democratiic party's victory in November.Even bill Clinton admits that Mac Cain will be a very viable candidate.

What is your opinion of this Michael Moore's comment about Hillary Clinton:"It is immoral to vote for Hillary Clinton."

I do not pay much attention to this nutjob. he is no different from some crazy right-winger. he is just an extreme left-winger.
all he does is take some truths and twist them in his own overdramatic ways.
i am not a big fan of him because i think he may have contributed to the kerry loss with his outrageous and over-the-top criticism of president bush.
some idiots are better off being your enemies than your publicly known friends. he is one of those types!!

To be fair ;Michael Mooore said that he would vote for Hillary if she were the nominee of the democratic party.The rationale for his criticism is her vote for the war.However , I agree with the last sentence of your comment. I said the democrats better stop demonizing Hillary,because I think it is counterproductive to say :" to vote for Hillary is immoral" and at the same time to say that you will vote for her.What kind of logic is this?

Last night I was listening to Senator Mac Cain's speech at a meeting of the conservatists.My opinion after is that Mac Cain is a man who would glorify Lucifer if he were in hell.Maybe it is this aspect of his character that enables him to be a Senator of the United Satets ,but sincerly I do not have too much respect for such politicians.I do not know what to expect from Mac Cain.Some politicians are so blinded by their ambitions that they will say anything to please their followers.I do not like dogmatist like Georges bush or do-gooder who are naive ,but a politician like John Mac Cwho will say anything to please people will not change this country.

When a politician professes to be a conservatist in this state of affairs then you're telling me that in your opinion everything is fine;there is no need to change anything.yet everybody with common sense could see that there is a great tragedy that will happen if we do not change our ways.How can I vote for such a person.I was watching an inteview on CNN where Collin Powell refused to endorse Mac Cain publicly ;I think he is right this time.

What do you think of the power given to the superdelegates to select the nominee of the democratic party in case neither candidates obtains the required 2025 delegates.?

In my opinion whoever obtains the majority of the delegates should be the nominee of the democratic party for the general elction in Novermber.I dislike the way that Georges Bush was elected president of The United States in 2000 by the decision of the great electors of the electoral college, in spite of the fact that Albert Gore obtained more votes in the election.If Senator Obama obtains more delegates after the primaries he should be the nominee of the democratic party.

It would be perilous for the democratic party to have a broken convention before the general election.

I am fully agree with Donna Bazile who said that, if after all these sacrifices the candidates have been through and if it comes to only 800 big shots in the party decide who will be the nominee, she will quit the democratic party.

Of course, Hillary relies on the superdeleguates to win the nomination but I think Hillary should concede and get along with Obama to form a ticket. Otherwise the party will be too divided and there will be a great lost in November.