As the nation moves forward in the process of nominating a Democratic Party candidate to run in November's general election, it's important to keep on the true path of... well, truth. The following points have been endlessly echoed through the media despite their inaccuracy. So here's my attempt at separating reality from rhetoric:
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton got the double-digit win she needed in Pennsylvania to prove she's turned it around and has a chance.
Reality #1: HILLARY WON THE PENNSYLVANIA PRIMARY BY 9% WHICH IS SINGLE DIGITS. Technically, 9.4%. And last time I was in a math class, you round .4 down, not up. Spin it all you want, but the difference between Clinton's and Obama's vote totals is less than 10%.
Reality #2: Hillary was expected to win this primary, by pretty much the final margin of victory. Yes, Obama closed the margin from initial polls that projected a Clinton win by anywhere from 18-26%... but the most recent polls have predicted a margin of anywhere from 6-12%. Oh, and despite the odd poll result, the majority have consistenly picked Clinton over Obama since they began polling in Pennsylvania.
Reality #3: You cannot use the results of a single primary to make the conclusion of a momentum shift. Remember Hillary's "big comeback" last month? The end result of the four primaries was a net gain of six delegates. The truth is, the primary race seems more provincial than sequential. Last December Obama's camp predicted the outcomes of each primary up to the convention, and all have come true with one or two exceptions (I remember Missouri being one, I forget what the other was). Chris Matthews read the list on his show a few months ago, and it went along the lines that have been the same factors in these recent primaries.
Reality #4: Hillary Clinton has no shot at overtaking Obama in the delegate count. Given the DNC's representative awarding of delegates, even a landslide win at this point won't generate enough delegates to close the gap. Same with the popular vote.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Michigan primary.
Reality: HILLARY CLINTON DID NOT WIN MICHIGAN. Trust me, I was there at the polling booth on primary day. My choices were Mrs. Clinton, "Uncommitted" or one of the Republican candidates. The leading democrats (Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson), in a move that would "undercut the validity of the contest", agreed to withdraw from Michigan's January 15 primary. not to campaign in the state and ignore the primary's results. All Democratic candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan because it broke DNC rules by moving its primary ahead of February 5. Yet she conveniently decided to keep her name on the ballot. At the time Hillary defended her actions by saying, "I personally did not think it made any difference, whether or not my name was on the ballot. You know, it's clear, in this election they're having, it is not going to count for anything." Boosted by the ego gratification of winning an uncontested election, she has since claimed "victory" in the state and argued that the DNC seat delegates and count the election results "as is". She now says, "I believe strongly that everyone should have their voices heard and their votes counted." Yet no one in the media questions her on this flip-flop.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won the Florida primary.
Reality: Hillary Clinton finished first in a primary that was ruled invalid weeks before Election Day. Thousands of residents failed to turn out, knowing their votes would not be counted. And the candidates--Hillary included--agreed not to count the Florida results, and not to campaign in the state. But as was the case in Michigan, Hillary's manipulative instincts got the better of her as she flew in ostensibly for a "campaign dinner" the day before the primary, yet turned the tarmac into photo op as she emerged from the aircraft waving and smiling at every camera. This, to Mrs. Clinton, is her idea of "not campaigning". Whether she would have finished first had the primary never been ruled invalid is hard to say. In other words, she may have, but we'll never know. And any thought of a do-over in either state makes no sense, since it disregards the people who crossed over and voted Republican, not to mention Senator Edwards and Governor Richardson no longer being involved.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton won Texas.
Reality: OBAMA WON TEXAS. Despite 100,000 fewer votes, Barack gained 99 delegates to Clinton's 94. Last time I checked, the party determines its nominee by delegate count. So Obama's five-delegate win in the Lone Star State should be acknowledged. Surprisingly, few outlets have even reported this fact much less acknowledged it. And all the while, Clinton supporters claim this "victory" as further proof that Obama cannot win in the "big states", with nary a sniff of rebuttal from the media. Shocking.
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton wins the big states, such as California, New York, Ohio, Texas, Michigan and Florida--something Barack Obama cannot do.
Reality: As we've just showed you, Hillary has no right to include Michigan and Florida, and Obama has more of a claim to Texas than she has. That's for starters. Now remove New York from the list since it's her home state (the same rationale used by Clinton to discredit Obamas big-state win in Illinois). That leaves Ohio and California. Ohio isn't as big as Texas, which as we've already said is Obama's to claim. So that leaves California--a significant win by Hillary, explained in part by her husband's incredible popularity in the state (as evidenced by convincing wins in '92 and '96). There's no disputing her win in the Golden State. But this one win doesn't and shouldn't label her as the "big-state" candidate. (And all experts assure us that whoever the Democratic nominee may be, they will defeat McCain in Cali.)
Rhetoric: Barack Obama is an elitist.
Reality: These claims are being leveled by the two remaining candidates, each of which could buy and sell Obama many times over, according to recently released tax returns. The Clintons claimed 10 times the income of the Obamas over the past seven years. And despite her most recent incarnation as a "woman of the people", she's the same former First Lady who, weeks before having the entire White House Travel Office employees fired, said, "You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinkin of her as a human being.". As for McCain--who hasn't seen a lobbyist he didn't like--he has also amassed millions upon millions more than the Illinois Senator, and has displayed an ignorance of basic domestic economics that recalls fellow out-of-touch Republican George H.W. Bush's cluelessness regarding the price of a gallon of milk.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama's comments in San Francisco bely his elitism.
Reality: In the same city, Hillary said the following during a fund-raising event: "Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush’s] tax cuts may have helped you. We’re saying that for America to get back on track, we’re probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." If Obama was showing his true colors with his remarks, what does this say about Clinton's? Her quote is teaming with imperialist condescension. Yet for some reason, it has not been mentioned by the "mainstream" media. Wile Obama's comment, like scripture, has been analyzed and scrutinized and ultimately taken out of context to up the shock factor.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama can't handle tough questions, as evidenced by the recent ABC debate.
Reality: Obama's people aren't complaining about the tough aspect of the questioning. They're complaining first about fairness (for example, one candidate's husband's press secretary being allowed to serve as moderator), and second about the chosen topics (for example, Barack's supposed unwillingness to wear an American flag lapel pin, as oppposed to anything related to Bin Laden).
Rhetoric: Hillary Clinton has an overall advantage in the popular vote.
Reality: She doesn't. In her recent speech Mrs. Clinton claims an advantage in the popular vote among all who have voted. Yet she continues to legitimize the invalid results in Michigan and Florida, where voters were told their primary wouldn't count, whereupon they either voted Republican or didn't vote at all. Once again, she is able to make this claim without being called out directly by the media. Gee big surprise.
Rhetoric: Barack Obama has been getting a "free pass" this election.
Reality: ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? He is getting it from ALL sides. From the Republicans, be it McCain's direct attacks or the right-wing media's unconditional support of Clinton. From his own fellow Democrats, where many of those considered the nucleus of his party are publicly tearing him apart. And even from the mainstream media--yes, the partisan left-wing media, whose ranks claim twice as many registered Democrats as Republicans--where both sides of the political spectrum, from the Fox News Channel to MSNBC, have confessed their love of the drama and strong ratings this prolonged race continues to deliver them. Which should explain those news shows that seem to be inventing topics about which to criticize Obama. And despite all the political waterboarding, each of these groups STILL think he deserves more attacks. It's horribly one-sided, yet the people who should notice are too busy taking part. The only people who aren't anti-Obama are those who have contributed to his campaign. Rarely have one million people felt so alone.
