Clinton Rhetoric
March 14, 2008
by Nate
This rather beautiful piece features interstitial commentary from the Obama campaign in a statement released by the Clinton campaign. Clinton's strategy appears, at this point, to convince enough people that winning Pennsylvania is the only way to tell which one of them deserves to win. This is the latest manifestation of the Clinton campaign's "big states" argument, which itself evolved from a much-mocked tendency to belittle the importance of any contest Clinton didn't win.
The jokes were funny. "Wisconsin doesn't matter because... hey, look over there!" What we didn't realize was that this would become the cornerstone of Clinton's bid for the nomination. As Colbert said: this is only a strong argument if you believe it is. Clinton has placed herself in the position of trying to twist truth and reality to fit her agenda, of trying to remake the image of reality in enough people's minds that they will support her instead of the candidate who has been fairly--if in a historically close race--chosen by the majority of Democratic voters. She's made herself into the Bush of the 2008 race.


Comments
On March 20 at 2'14 PM
, OBloody Hell wrote:
> This is the latest manifestation of the Clinton campaign’s “big states” argument
This has been at the heart of the whole Dem position for the last 8 years, and is a cornerstone of BDS:
“Bush didn’t deserve to win, even if he did get the state votes!! Gore won the popular vote! Repeal the electoral college!!”
Why is it surprising one of the Dems would apply it to their own situation against another Dem? It’s rather obvious that if it applies to Dem-v-GOP, it applies likewise to Dem-v-Dem.