Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Scientist I Saw U! | Dumb Fucking Racist Cracker Pi... »

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

The Truth About Pennsylvania

posted by on March 12 at 11:17 AM

Pretty dumb comment from Hillary Clinton spokesperson Larry Springer.

In the debate over electability (popular vote, battleground states, delegates) He says:

The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama canít win there, how will he win the general election?

Except that George Bush did not win Pennsylvania in 2004 or 2000, and he got into the White House. I get that PA is part of the winning Democratic electoral vote equation, but get your facts right, dude.

RSS icon Comments


Don't you get it? They both have the word "Pennsylvania" in them! It's a must-win!

Posted by Levislade | March 12, 2008 11:18 AM

Geez... they might as well go with "the path to the White House goes through whites"

Posted by JMR | March 12, 2008 11:20 AM

@2 - actually, that seems to be their strategy.

Or houses? No one has ever won the presidency without winning the votes of people who live in houses. You can take that to the bank.

Posted by Levislade | March 12, 2008 11:22 AM

If Hillary can't beat a black man that simply is beating her because of black people, how can she win?

The possibilities are endless.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | March 12, 2008 11:23 AM

I guess Barack better ship a few cargo planes of lattes over there. I hear that's like Clinton Kryptonite.

Posted by JC | March 12, 2008 11:24 AM

I'm sorry, the Clinton campaign has clearly jumped the shark.

First with the comments by Ferraro, now this.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 12, 2008 11:25 AM

Both candidate's spokesmen and women will be making loads of these kinds of "it's inevitable! it's necessary!" statements over the next (sigh) seven weeks. This doesn't bother me a bit, unlike the Ferraro garbage.

Posted by Fnarf | March 12, 2008 11:25 AM

I look forward to six fucking weeks of this.

Posted by Ziggity | March 12, 2008 11:26 AM

Jesus Christ! It's like watching a clown convention. Superdelegates need to start flooding to Obama's side NOW to end this delusional woman's campaign. Merciful heavens.

Posted by Michigan Matt (soon to be Baltimatt) | March 12, 2008 11:28 AM

PA is part of a winning Democratic electoral vote equation.

This says Obama doesn't need Pennsylvania. You linked to this last week, Josh. Have you forgotten already?

Posted by elenchos | March 12, 2008 11:32 AM

I spose she didn't see that surveyUSA map where Obama loses PA and then wins the election by a margin of error bigger than hers.

But yeah, the GWB 2x example is pretty relevant too.

Posted by John | March 12, 2008 11:32 AM

I spose she didn't see that surveyUSA map where Obama loses PA and then wins the election by a margin of error bigger than hers.

But yeah, the GWB 2x example is pretty relevant too.

Posted by John | March 12, 2008 11:32 AM

haha uh... margin of error isn't the right way to say that... but y'all know what I meant.

Posted by john | March 12, 2008 11:33 AM

The path to Washington DC goes through Washington State. If Clinton can't even win in that state, how can we trust her to be president?

Posted by Gabriel | March 12, 2008 11:43 AM

this is a pretty minor statement.

Posted by infrequent | March 12, 2008 11:48 AM

Maybe I'm not getting it but... What's the argument? That PA is the make-or-break state? That doesn't have any basis in reality. In the general election, PA isn't really even a big deal. How many freakin' electoral college votes does PA get?...

HRC has been doing well in tried-and-true Blue States-- she wins over a lot of old school dems. To imply that Blue States would rather vote for McCain than Obama is, uh, wrong. They'll vote Blue, whether the HRC is the candidate or Obama is.

If Obama is our nom, he'll win in California, he'll win in New York, he'll win in Rhode Island and Massachusetts and New Jersey... He'll win, easily, in just about every place that HRC won.

But can she do the same? Can she win in the places that Obama is pulling out the vote? Places like South Carolina and Mississippi and Louisiana? You know, latte sipping places like that?

Will the people who came out to show support for Obama be there for the dems if HRC is the candidate?

I think we all know the answer to that.

Do I think tried-and-true Red States are going to go Blue in the general election? Probably not. But I think they will go Purple, and that'll give McCain a run for his money. HRC does not have the power, the support, and the momentum to make create a massive wave of Purple States. Obama does.

He has won more delegates in 30 of the 44 states that have voted thus far. In the 14 states that he has not won, for the most part, his margin of loss is slim and he would easily get the Dem vote if HRC wasn't there.

It seems like a simple idea to me, but apparantly it's too complex for Hillary "Win at Any Cost" Clinton.

I'm with #9- the superdelegates need to step in and end this madness NOW.

Posted by Samantha | March 12, 2008 11:54 AM

You have to admit, it's funny hearing all this "what state X really means" commentary. If only there was some way to QUANTIFY it, so you could add them all up and see which candidate has more?

Posted by Fnarf | March 12, 2008 11:56 AM

the path goes through every place in america at one time or another.

the road to downing street goes through downing, too, i suppose.

Posted by max solomon | March 12, 2008 11:59 AM

Doesn't the nominee have to win more than just Democrats? Isn't it fallacious to equate winning a Democratic primary/caucus with winning the general election?

Clinton team idiots.

Posted by Simac | March 12, 2008 12:01 PM

Gregoire & 4 other governors challenge the big-state spin:

Posted by Fitz | March 12, 2008 12:08 PM

Jesus F'ng Christ... Stop bashing Hillary. Just because you want to be trendy and support the flavor of the month, Obama. There are a lot of us "old" Democrats, who have paid our dues and worked hard for this party before it was trendy and we are REAL tired of the Hillary bashing. Hillary was standing up for women, gays, blacks, the disabled and veterens for more than 35 years and it's really sad that just becuase she doesn't sound like some arrogant preacher all of you want to turn your backs on her and try discount all that she has stood for.
Enjoy your smug trend while it lasts because there will not be much of a Democratic party left when you all get through with it.

Posted by Brian Carter | March 12, 2008 12:31 PM

There are a lot of us "old" Democrats, who have paid our dues and worked hard for this party before it was trendy. . .

My first vote for a Democrat was for George McGovern in 1972, so I assume I've been in the party long enough to qualify under your definition.

I support Barack Obama. I won't disparage Hillary Clinton and I don't think others would as much if she hadn't been running on the "kitchen sink" strategy for over a month.

The ugliness of the recent campaign has been coming from the Clinton side, not the Obama side. They are desperate and believe the only way they can win is to "drive up his negatives", as they say. Hillary is the one who would rather detroy the Democratic Party than lose.

Posted by Pug | March 12, 2008 12:42 PM

You're right 21. Obama must be a passing fad. Which is why he keeps winning and by larger margins. Just a whisper in the breeze, that guy.

If Hillary had used her positions on gays, blacks, and other disenfranchised peoples to actually make some intelligent policy decisions, she might have had better luck in this contest. But she's just riding on her husband's coattails. How else could she have won a Senate seat in a state she's not from with no previous elected experience?

And tell me again that she doesn't sound arrogant. It humors me. Perhaps it'll be the new trend!

Posted by Ziggity | March 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Okay, Brian Carter. You can always visit sites, such as, and bash Obama. It's equal opportunity bashing for both campaigns.

Posted by Grow a pair! | March 12, 2008 12:43 PM

Speaking of getting your facts straight, Josh: His name is Phil Singer. Larry Springer would be a member of our state legislature.

Posted by Duh | March 12, 2008 12:59 PM

@21, with the Clinton campaign making no effort to reign in its campaign finance chair and spokesperson Geraldine Ferraro, we have the amazing spectacle of a Democrat explicitly injecting racial divisiveness into a national campaign in a way not seen since George Wallace. For many, this is betrayal of principle and basic decency beyond anything we could have imagined of a Democratic candidate.

Posted by mirror | March 12, 2008 1:28 PM

mirror@21: Ferraro is neither the Clinton finance chair nor the spokesperson. Get your hysterical rhetoric correct.

WiS@6: Ferraro's comment was uncalled for, and I said so yesterday. But comparing it to Springer's boilerplate our-opponent-has-to-win-this-state-in-which-we're-leading fluff is transparent disingenuity.

Posted by Big Sven | March 12, 2008 1:53 PM

Ferraro is toast and CNN says she is resigning from the Clinton campaign.

You were saying, Big Sven?

Meanwhile, in other news ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 12, 2008 2:26 PM

The question is can he win where he doesn't "touch" the people physically. He has done a great job of getting voters out in caucus states and has brought in the black vote which has resulted in many Old South victories. Well done no doubt and totally legitimate but not likely to convert into general election victory states for many of those that occurred in "red" states.

from Michael Barrone (right winger)
"In contrast, Obama's demagoguing on trade failed to attract white working-class voters: He ran far behind Clinton in Mahoning County (Youngstown) and the west side of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland). In southeast Ohio, settled originally by Virginians and still southern-accented today, Clinton carried all-white counties with 70 to 80 percent of the vote--by more than she was carrying nearly-all-white counties in central Texas. That raises doubts that Obama could run well in these counties, which provided critical votes in Bill Clinton's wins in Ohio in the 1990s and Jimmy Carter's narrow win there in 1976."

Posted by McG | March 12, 2008 2:30 PM

Will, you would be the expert in jumping the shark, no doubt.

Posted by McG | March 12, 2008 2:32 PM

Clinton is so focused on PA.

All her recent race bating is an effort to appeal to central PA voters, who often resent the electoral 2 ton elephant of Philly in state wide elections there.

To many people in PA philly is the "black" city in the state, it represents "black interests" and so forth. They'll jump at the chance to vote for Clinton if they think it is somehow against the electoral wishes of blacks. Rural PA is about as enlightened as rural alabama.

Which makes it so deliciously ironic that Rendell is stumping for Clinton. He was the Mayor of Philly, and was essentially elected to PA governor in 2002 on the landslide vote for him in Philly.

Posted by dbto | March 12, 2008 3:08 PM

@30 - not really, although I did once run into a shark in Fiji, and had to swim for the coral fast ... man that was exciting!

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 12, 2008 4:10 PM

Well, I live on Republican Street, and I still don't see how McCain can pick up the nomination without coming through me.


You're right. That is kinda stupid.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | March 12, 2008 4:21 PM

Brian Carter @ 21

Jesus F'ng Christ... Stop bashing Hillary. Just because you want to be trendy and support the flavor of the month, Obama. There are a lot of us "old" Democrats, who have paid our dues and worked hard for this party before it was trendy and we are REAL tired of the Hillary bashing.

Yeah, you "old Democrats" sure have done a great job. Let's look at the "old Democrat" record and count your many successes:

  • Richard Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
  • Richard Nixon beat George McGovern like a rented mule in 1972.
  • Jimmy Carter won in 1976 and is regarded as one of the most inept presidents in American history.
  • Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980.
  • Ronald Reagan not only beat Mondale/Ferraro in 1984 but he humped the two of them like a pair of bitches, went A2M on them and then spooged on their faces, wiped his dick on their drapes, stole all of the money from their wallets and ran over their dog as he was backing out of the driveway.
  • George H.W. Bush beat Michael Dukakis in 1988.
  • Bill Clinton did win in 1992, and for that he, and the rest of you "old Democrats" should be eternally grateful to H. Ross Perot for siphoning off support from George H.W. Bush.
  • The "old Democrats" lost the House of Representatives in 1994.
  • Bill Clinton won in 1996 against Bob "You'll get Bob Dole's Viagra when you pry it from Bob Dole's cold dead fingers." Dole but even then he didn't break 50 percent of the vote.
  • Al Gore lost in 2000 to George W. Bush, a man who makes Ralph Wiggum look like a Rhodes Scholar, and contrary to what "old Democrats" think it's not Ralph Nader's fault, the fact is that a lot of "old Democrats" voted for Bush in the 2000 election.
  • The Republicans increased their majority in the House of Representatives in 2002.
  • John Kerry lost in 2004 to Ralph Wiggum, er, I mean, George W. Bush in 2004.
  • The Republican party increased their majority in the Senate and the House in the 2004 elections.
  • The Democrats did manage to retake the House in 2006 and managed to gain a bare majority in the Senate but unfortunately neither both Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are unwilling to do anything with it such as stand up to George W. Bush, even though Bush's approval ratings are some of the lowest of any American president.
  • In 1999 "old Democrat" Dianne Feinstein introduced a bill to censure Bill Clinton for the Lewinsky contretemps. Her bill was co-sponsored by "old Democrats" such as Ted Kennedy, Joe Lieberman, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Herb Kohl and a few others. These "old Democrats" were willing to censure Bill Clinton for lying about his affair with Monica Lewinsky but haven't done a thing to censure George W. Bush for lying to get us into war in Iraq, failing to respond to the Katrina disaster or for being one of the most, if not the most incompetent, bungling and corrupt president the United States has ever had.
  • "old Democrats" Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer gave attorney general candidate Michael Mukasey a pass on his nomination, despite his refusal to answer questions about torture.
  • Shall we talk about the "old Democrats" who voted to give George W. Bush a blank check in Iraq. That's a fun roll-call of shame. Let's see, we have "old Democrats" Joe Biden, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller (who is now pushing for telecom immunity), Dianne Feinstein, Tom Daschle, Herb Kohl, Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer, Bob Torricelli, Ernest Hollings, Hell, you can find the list, oh and when you do note that Hillary Clinton is on it.
  • If it weren't for the support of "old Democrats" (and Hillary Clinton) the Kyl/Lieberman amendment, which Jim Webb (a new Democrat) referred to as "...Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream", never would have passed. I'm pissed at Barack Obama because he didn't vote against this piece of shit but if it weren't for limp-dick "old Democrat" Harry Reid this piece of shit never would have even come up for a vote.

Yeah, you "old Democrats" sure have done a lot to be proud of; you're 3 and 7 in the last 10 presidential elections and you've given George W. Bush everything he wanted in Iraq, congratulations.

Hillary was standing up for women, gays, blacks, the disabled and veterens for more than 35 years and it's really sad that just becuase she doesn't sound like some arrogant preacher all of you want to turn your backs on her and try discount all that she has stood for.

Can you give us some examples of Hillary standing up for women, gays, blacks, veterans and the disabled? Yeah, she sure did stand up for gays in 1996 when her husband signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law and then took out ads on conservative Christian radio stations to brag about it. And she sure did stand up for veterans when she gave Bush a blank check to start a war in Iraq. Of course thanks to her part in giving George W. Bush his blank check there are now more disabled people for her to stand up for, which is good since the troops that were killed in Iraq or had their legs blown off or were paralyzed can't stand up for themselves any more.

Please Brian, give us some examples of the good works of Saint Hillary of Chatauqua (by way of Little Rock and Washington, D.C.). I'm sure that they'll be as amusing to read as her claims to foreign policy experience and as fictional as George W. Bush's military record (or as fictional as Hillary Clinton's foreign policy experience).

Tell us Brian, when you became an "old Democrat" did you get a special "old Democrat" card signed by "old Democrat" Zell Miller? You must be absolutely thrilled to see "old Democrat" Geraldine Ferraro pulling plays from the "old Democrat" playbook on race-baiting written by "old Democrats" Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.

How long does one have to be an "old Democrat" before they are allowed to display the sense of entitlement and patronizing condescension that you and your fellow "old Democrats" Hillary Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, Bill Clinton and Gloria Steinem display? Are the rest of us who aren't members of the "old Democrat" club supposed to strew flower petals wherever you walk and bow down and worship you? Do you get a special "old Democrat" parking pass? Sure, you "old Democrats" don't have much of a record of success, and a lot of the time you act like old Republicans, but geez, you'd think that you "old Democrats", despite your multiple failures to win elections and your unwillingness to actually do anything when you do win them, that you'd get something for all of that hard work you've done and all those dues you paid.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | March 12, 2008 6:08 PM


Quixote: 1,000,000
Old Democrat: 0

Kids, I think we've got a winner.

Posted by Lee Gibson | March 12, 2008 6:53 PM

Hillary Clinton Sucks Ass. She'll never win the presidency.

Posted by Hillary Clinton Sucks | March 13, 2008 11:27 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).