Even before her win tonight, Hillary was pointing out that a Hillary win in Pennsylvania demonstrates the fallacy underlying the ‘Obama is inevitable’ argument.
Hillary Clinton said if Barack Obama does not win Pennsylvania despite his huge campaign war chest, people ought to ask the question, “Why can’t he close the deal?”…
Clinton went to say that if she wins Pennsylvania, she will have accumulated wins in key states that Democrats need in order to retake the White House in November. She seemed to be speaking directly to superdelegates when she tried to raise doubts over Obama’s ability to win. “With his extraordinary financial advantage, why can’t he win a state like this one if that’s the way it turns out?” Clinton asked. “Obviously we have a long way to go before people are finished voting and the votes are counted. This will be one more in a long line of big states, states that Democrats have to win.”(CBS News)
At Political Punch earlier today, Jake Tapper also wondered why the much better-funded Obama can’t win over Clinton’s constituents.
I don’t begrudge the Obama campaign for successfully setting Sen. Clinton’s bar so high — that’s its job — and of course I understand that in order for Clinton to have a real shot, she needs a big W so as to eat away at Obama’s 800,000 popular vote lead, and to make the argument to super-Ds that states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Florida are a problem for him.
Fine, fine.
But what’s so crazy about the idea that the Democratic frontrunner — flush with cash and outspending Clinton 3-to-1, running against a candidate with such high unfavorable ratings — should be able to win a blue state primary?
Just because Clinton has the support of the governor and the mayors of the two largest cities? So what? This isn’t about Ed
Rendell…..The Obama campaign may likely spin tonight’s outcome as a W for him as long as she doesn’t win by 25 points. I, for one, ain’t buying it. (Jake Tapper; emphasis added).
"Why can’t Obama just win it all?" looks like it’s becoming the new media meme.
But it’s really the wrong question. The right question is this: If neither can sew it up, isn’t it a clear sign that neither is the party’s choice and that they both need to run together?
If tonight’s win proves anything, it proves that the two warring candidates — now more than ever — really do need each other. Neither has the support of enough of the party to be handed the crown without grave offense to the other half.
I’d say it’s about time for them both to come to terms with it. The only question really ought to be which one should be at the top of the ticket. For experience and proven ability to understake a hard, uphill work, I’d say Hillary all the way with Obama taking his turn in the fullness of time.
But it’s time for them to have a sit-down and time for the Hillary-versus-Obama show to close down. This isn’t about them; it’s about all of us. The two of them need to start focusing on how they’re going to win it all for the rest of us Democrats.
Memeorandum here….
CROSS-POSTED AT BUCK NAKED POLITICS
PAST CONTRIBUTOR.