Clinton Strategist: Barack Can't Win

Hillary Clinton's chief campaign strategist told reporters yesterday that Barack Obama couldn't win in a general election. USA Today has the quote and the audio:

Here is what Penn said. We're posting a little more than 2 minutes of his opening statement because we want to make sure you get the full context. It's in the last 20 seconds or so that he says Obama "really can't win the general election." As you'll hear, he also says that "if Barack Obama can't win" in Pennsylvania, "how could he win the general election?"

This is part of an ongoing effort on the part of the Clinton campaign to wage an electability war over Super-delegates come convention time. They have repeatedly made the case that Barack wins in states that "don't matter", and that Hillary carries "important states" like Ohio and Tex...well, Ohio, and California, etc. Aside from being a massive PR blunder, on par with flipping off Democrats in the majority of states, the argument just doesn't make sense. The fact that Democratic turnout in every state has far outstripped Republican turnout would seem to indicate that either Democratic candidate would stand an excellent chance to win those states, but perhaps Penn envisions a Clinton base that simply melts away if she is not the Democratic nominee.

Penn goes on to accuse the Obama campaign of doing to Pennsylvania what he (Penn) has done to all of the states Obama has won. (And there are a lot of those.) Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, then saying the kettle is lucky to be black. Or something like that.

Update: 9:33PM Live responses to comments coming up at the end.

Luckily, the kettle has a better grip on reality, and shot back with an eerily familiar (to me) and funny response to the Clinton campaign's talking points, and the following strong rebuttal from a spokesman:

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor this evening sent this statement to reporters: "It can't inspire too much confidence in the Clinton campaign when their pollster ignores both polls and math by making comments as divorced from reality as this one. Senator Obama is leading in delegates, states won, the popular vote, and fares better than Senator Clinton against John McCain in poll after poll, including critical swing states like Iowa, Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Wisconsin."

That response best sums up the problem with the campaign that Penn is running: Divorced from reality. Along similar lines, I got this today from Clinton's campaign newsletter:

Did You Know? The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. No candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

That really made me think. Hey, Did You Know? that no woman has ever won the Presidency without winning the Mars primary? The same holds true of a black candidate. Are you going to campaign on Mars now? Sure, your names aren't on the ballot there, but why should that stop you from trying to seat those delegates? Just be prepared to lose there in the general election, because Ron Paul has the place locked up.

If you fail to secure the Democratic nomination, you could always take those "important" states, like Ohio, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania, and secede from the U.S. to form the People's Republic of Clintonia.

Now, I've said many times before, there is a great case to be made for Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and I wish they would make that case. But to make these sorts of ridiculous electability arguments, and to insist that the results in Michigan were fair, where Obama's name was not even on the ballot, and where Hillary agreed the vote would not count, and to tell voters in states where Obama won that they don't matter, and to position every single state where you hold a double-digit lead as the bellwether, well, it just makes you look desperate.

Not to let the Obama campaign off the hook, their humorous rebuttal of the Clinton campaign's talking points was remarkably similar in form and content to an article I posted on Wednesday. Is this possibly another plagiarism scandal?

9:06PM 2 things, people: ENOUGH WITH THE ALL CAPS! And if it's a long article, post the link and a paragraph or 2.

D-Illinoid, the Dems have been blowing the GOP away in turnout through the entire primary season. The denial is poignant, though.

9:20PM Wish Belkin, I don't even know if you're on this thread, but a hearty "RP4P!" to you!

Sandy Clark, if you're out there, hi! We miss you.

Hako, you make your point very rationally and eloquently, and I appreciate that. Having said that, it makes zero sense to think that a loss in a Democratic primary translates to a loss in the general, especially with the Party this energized. The threat only carries weight if Hillary withholds her support for Barack.

9:26PM John C., I feel for you, Edwards was my guy. I hope you support whoever the Dem nominee is.

JENNY - GET REAL AMERICANS TO DO WHAT?

Kristen F, I agree 200%. That's the spirit.

Carol, I disagree. I posted a reply on David Knowles' piece, but it's buried in there. Bottom line, it's idiotic and disingenuous to try to put Wright's words in Obama's mouth. I don't care about McCain's preachers, either. I just want a good president.

9:38PM Katherine, the 50 state strategy worked in the midterms. This is the worst Republican Party since the Paleolithic Era. Why would we surrender those states when Obama/Clinton can win 'em all?

Lance, LOL, that is some weak sauce. A cigarette? And calling him Hussein is a total d move. I don't want to hear how much you love the party. Hillary isn't hurting the party by staying in, she's hurting it by running a McCain-lite campaign that McCain will destroy in November.

PJayee, LOL.

Ted, Hippie Chick, etc, I might do a separate story on Wright, but here's the short version. Who gives a crap? The stuff ABC showed wasn't that bad, and I'm sure they showed the worst. Obama's answer was fine. You have to understand black people a little bit to really get it, but his "Uncle" analogy was good. There's a broad context of black rhetorical tradition that you're missing out on. Still, even without that, the context of Wright's remarks is evident. You might not like or understand the way he expresses himself, but it's far from crazy.

9:54PM Troy, to say that something is absurd as you're confirming it is absurd. Trying to make Michigan count is absurd. Y'now what I did? I beat the New York Yankees! Yeah, I was at the stadium, and they didn't show up, so that's a forfeit! And I gave them cooties!

Fedpres, I would be proud to have Hillary as our nominee, but it isn't going to happen, and her scare campaign is going to hand the election to McCain. That will not make me proud. And all of the Hillary supporters, especially women, who say they will vote for McCain over Obama, I hope you enjoy Roe v Wade for the rest of the year, because that's all you'll have. Men, do you want John McCain deciding what happens to your wife's body, instead of her doctor and herself? THINK ABOUT IT! WAKE UP AMERICA!

Dennis, A-to the-Men!

JV, see Troy for #1. The rest of your facts are wrong. Hillary signed an agreement that Florida and Michigan would not count. Obama's ad buy was national. There's nothing in the Constitution to overturn party rules. They can throw darts at Noam Chomsky to pick a nominee if they want to. And Obama never claims to have voted against the authorization to use force in Iraq. He spoke out against the war during his Senate campaign. You can argue the relative courage of that move, but it doesn't make him a liar.

Lisa, Bozo, that's a new one. Listen, if you're going to call me biased, you need to support that. Your point about Michigan is moot. They all agreed ahead of time that neither contest would count. In writing. And all of the other candidates were not on the ballot in Mich. I know Edwards wasn't.

10:28PM David S, I agree almost completely, but there is a good case to be made for Hillary. I've made it, in fact. She currently is not. She's making a case for McCain.

10:32PM OK, I apologize, but I have to skip ahead, this is taking too long. Anyone I missed, go ahead and repost now, or email me at tommychristopher@comcast.net.

LOL, Obama08 "This is a blog not my english paper"

10:39PM Katherine, I disasgree about Wright, but even so, if that's the best you've got...Wasn't Hillary a Goldwater Girl? Who gives a crap? There is no substance to it. Your arguments are very persistent and rhetorically forceful, though. Wish you were on my side. The Democratic side.

Maz, right on.

Great, off-topic comment of the night: TFitz-"Lhasa is in flames, monks are being jailed and beaten and the crackdown has not even yet commenced. We need to withdraw from the Olympic games now.
The Communist Chinese Gov't poisons us, poisons it's own people and and we go along in the interests of 'free trade'. This means that the corporations are able to reap huge profits from the dirt poor chinese laborer while we stand at the brink of economic depression.
The Chinese have the prison capacity to jail every Tibetan man, woman and child and we are about to see that put to use. Torture of prisoners is a regular practice, both in Tibet and in China proper. We need to end this charade and halt relations with this insane empire and we need to start with ending our participation in their PR showcase, the Olympic Games.
Is it worth that cheap shit we buy at walmart to stand by while atrocity after atrocity is perpetrated on not only the people of Tibet but on all the people under the rule of the so called Peoples Republic?"

Mulloverthis, great point:"Ferraro said only what honest Black people will say and it is true. It is just unwelcome from a privileged white woman."

JR, you continue to act as though no Hillary supporters will vote for Barack. The Red State/Blue State argument is moot, and again, 2006.

Mulloverthis, first, can you get a shorter username? I'm not sure what comments you are referring to, but as I remember it, he was citing head-to-head polls and responding to Hillary's "electability" argument. In any case, it is a fair question, but I am on the record as hating the whole "electability" argument. I wrote a whole story about it in December, I think. You know how you find out if someone's electable? You have an election.

OK, that's all for now, I'll check back later. Thanks for commenting.

Mitch, you are exactly right. It's a nonsense argument either way.

Saturday, 3/15/08 11:18PM Katherine, first of all, I laughed out loud at the "newspaper from the future" thing. It's hard to make me laugh. Thank you.

You've been reading me for awhile, so I hope you get the shorthand I was using there. When I said "the Democratic side", I was referring to your willingness to put a Republican in office if your candidate is not the nominee.

On the subject of Rev Wright, I have a hard time believing that this really bothers you, I think it's just a political trap. Either way, I've never cared much about "guilt by association." like this. It's a cheap political trick to put someone else's words into your opponent's mouth. I don't care about it no matter who the candidate is. I plan to addresss Wright specifically in a future article. I would like to see your response from the DK post.