I know everyone thinks that Obama is the unstopable candidate and that Hillary doesn’t have a chance.
But if Obama is so strong, why is it Clinton beat him 2–1 in West Virginia?
As the Washington Post article today makes clear, Clinton hopes that her lopsided victory shows that she’s the candidate better able to win important states in the Presidential election.
Her argument is that she’s the stronger candidate, and at least in my eyes, her point shouldn’t be ignored.
Clinton argued that, by winning in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, New Hampshire and now West Virginia, she has demonstrated strength where it counts. "The White House is won in the swing states, and I am winning the swing states," she said.
Face it, McCain is plain awful. I’m sure he’s a great guy — certainly an admirable war hero — but he’s simply a clone of George Bush. If you like what the current President has done (and record numbers of American have indicated that they do not), vote McCain.
With the state of the current economy, the deep dissatisfaction of the war in Iraq, and the approval ratings of the President in the toilet, the Democrats should have had a cakewalk into the White House.
Instead, they decided to show how liberal the party is and have ended up with an African American and a woman as the potential candidates. Both face severe hardships in the coming election. As I indicated before, the Democrats have shot themselves in the foot in this election no matter who the ultimate candidate is in November.
The Post article notes that the exit polls in West Virginia showed what folks in that state think about Obama:
Only a narrow majority of Democratic primary voters said they would support Obama in the general election if he were to get the party's nod. Fewer than half called the senator from Illinois honest and trustworthy, and a similarly low number said he is in sync with their values.
That spells big trouble for Democrats.
What should have been a stroll in the park will instead be a marathon….
Comments