Hillary's Win in PA a Pyrrhic Victory?
Hillary Clinton scored a victory in the Keystone state's primary yesterday with 54.6% of the votes to Obama's 45.4%, a margin of 9.2%, decidedly short of the double digit lead in the 20's her campaign was trumpeting not long ago before switching to the dramatically reduced expectation of "a win is a win."
As reported in the NYTimes, Barack Obama had this to say, " 'Our attitude is that as long as Senator Clinton wants to stay in the race and as long as she’s got support and her name’s on the ballot, then there’s no reason why we can’t continue to campaign,' Mr. Obama said in a radio program. 'I do want to make sure that during the course of our campaigning that we keep an eye on John McCain.' ”
Meanwhile, the press hardly took notice that 27% of Republicans seemed dissatisfied with McCain, the media' s darling, and voted for Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, both of whom had dropped out of the race. Also, many Republicans crossed over to vote Democratic which could be interpreted either as a vote against a third Bush term under McSame or gaming the PA primary.
However, Hillary's Pennsylvania win may have been a Pyrrhic victory.
Even the NYTimes seemed to be having regrets about its endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Today's editorial "The Low Road to Victory" states, "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
"Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.
"By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama."
So on and on and on we go to North Carolina and Indiana.
As reported in the NYTimes, Barack Obama had this to say, " 'Our attitude is that as long as Senator Clinton wants to stay in the race and as long as she’s got support and her name’s on the ballot, then there’s no reason why we can’t continue to campaign,' Mr. Obama said in a radio program. 'I do want to make sure that during the course of our campaigning that we keep an eye on John McCain.' ”
Meanwhile, the press hardly took notice that 27% of Republicans seemed dissatisfied with McCain, the media' s darling, and voted for Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul, both of whom had dropped out of the race. Also, many Republicans crossed over to vote Democratic which could be interpreted either as a vote against a third Bush term under McSame or gaming the PA primary.
However, Hillary's Pennsylvania win may have been a Pyrrhic victory.
Even the NYTimes seemed to be having regrets about its endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Today's editorial "The Low Road to Victory" states, "It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election.
"Mrs. Clinton did not get the big win in Pennsylvania that she needed to challenge the calculus of the Democratic race.
"By staying on the attack and not engaging Mr. Obama on the substance of issues like terrorism, the economy and how to organize an orderly exit from Iraq, Mrs. Clinton does more than just turn off voters who don’t like negative campaigning. She undercuts the rationale for her candidacy that led this page and others to support her: that she is more qualified, right now, to be president than Mr. Obama."
So on and on and on we go to North Carolina and Indiana.
Comments