Obama & Fitch, and Hillary Can't Win

Interesting night in Pennsyltucky, eh?

First, CNN: Do we still need to see Huckabee's delegate count? What about Mike Gravel's 2,700 lunatic votes?

Second, Obama: Great speech in Indiana, but did you need all three Abercrombie & Fitch triplets behind you? Who dresses like that?

Third, consider Hillary Clinton's situation. She:

• Is the most famous woman in America
• Has the only Democratic president elected in the last three decades campaigning every day for her
• Has been presumed the next president for the last three years

And yet, she can't wrap up the Democratic nomination over a man who nobody heard of four years ago. She's lost more states to him than she's won. In Ohio and Pennsylvania, two states dominated by older, grumpy, white Catholics, she doesn't win by the 20%-30% she should, but only 10%. And her campaign's ledger looks like Bear Stearns' subprime CDO portfolio.

And people say Obama can't close the deal?

Why is Hillary still running, when she performs so poorly against expectations? Simply, she has been running for president for eight years. She has one brutal endgame -- destroy her opponent with innuendo, alienate his supporters, then lay such utter waste to John McCain that enough Obama voters are sufficiently terrified to hold their noses and rally back to her.

Why quit an eight-year quest when such an endgame is still remotely in reach? So on we go. In the words of Liz Lemon, Blurgh.

Comments

[tk]

She'll stay in it because she has people around her who are paid to tell her she can win it.

John McCain must be loving this. He doesn't have to spend a dime. The Democrats are doing all the attack ads he needs themselves.

I noticed the A&F crew, too. WTF? Product placement, or did they coordinate it like painting letters on your chest at a football game?

[alisea]

It's crazy witchever way you look at it, and the typo is obviously perpetrated. I have no say in this matter, I don't even live in the country... I do not believe in stadistics, polls or projections. In actual numbers, yes. All this running around/against the grain I find funky. It doesn't matter all that much. Who created the possibility of a debate? The person who is moving more forward. I think democracy should take one step back: a person a vote. To each their own. One to one. Equal.
Why don't people perpetrate themselves, day to day? Can you vote if you don't believe in yourself? One needs to know where one wants to go. That is a must before going further or daring to vote.
I hope this isn't out of line in within the blog, please feel free not to post it...

[alisea]

and yes, being a mathematician, not statistically inclined, but strict, Hillary would need a miracle to be the nominee. And my next comment is now lost in translation... Think for yourselves. As always, chapeau, Seamus

[Mags]

My boss and I have been talking about this for the past few days. It's surprising that the narrative - nay, meme, if you will - in the press continues to be "Can Hillary make it?" rather than "Obama, presumptive-nominee-to-be." Why is that? I mean, the run-up to Pennsylvania was a lot of hoo-hah about nothing. Of course Hillary (is it one "L"?) was going to win in PA. But by a much larger margin.

Whatever.

I guess you can tell which candidate I'm leaning toward.

[Chris]

Good point about closing the deal. But a bit how I see it. Hillary is better positioned than George W Bush to win a party nomination - and cannot do it. Starts at 40%+ and cannot get to 50%??!!

A&F Crew.
NYTimes wonders as well http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/those-abercrombie-guys/
If they were age-inappropriate (like 35+) with biceps bulging - I would guess gays. But it was a rally in Pittsburgh - and they might have thought they were cool.