Clinton's Unchallenged Spin

Update: See Getting Real and Assessing Strength in Swing States (NYT, April 24, 2008).

This morning, Hillary Clinton and her surrogates keep on with the desperate and ludicrous spin that winning big states in the Democratic primary points to winning these states in the general election, hence Hillary is the stronger candidate.

Losing in national popular vote total, number of states won, number of pledged delegates won, and high negative voter impressions, the Clinton campaign's contention is posited to the likes of Wolf Blitzer and network know-nothings who let Clinton's ridiculous proposition go on in silence, without laughing it off the air.

To impart any substance into Clinton's assertion, one has to believe that Clinton's winning California and New York in the primary means that Obama as nominee would not win these states in a general election. Ridiculous.

And as Hillary likes to appeal to history, one must believe that Bill Clinton's losing most of New England in the 1992 primary would suggest that Bill would perform there badly in the general election. [It didn't happen.]

And to take Hillary's thesis and apply it to the swing states like Missouri, Iowa and Wisconsin (where Obama won in this primary), one must, by Clinton's logic, argue that Obama and not Clinton would win these vital states in the general election.

In fact, one can apply this logic of the 30-plus states won by Obama (at this primary's end) and conclude that Obama, and only Obama, would win these states in the general election.

Preposterous, yet the network airheads let this crap go on unchallenged.