Skip to content

Hillary Clinton’s Win in Pennsylvania Gained By Dirty Tactics At Expense Of Barack Obama

April 23, 2008

The idea that the Democratic nomination should be Hillary Clinton’s, and that her right to that goal is paramount above the needs of the party and the nation, is hard to understand.  Granted there needs to be within the heart of every candidate the idea that they are the best for the position for which they campaign in order to make it through the daily grind of the race.  That is, I suspect, only a natural feeling.  If a candidate did not feel so strongly that they were superior to the opposition the race should never have been attempted.  But when ego and power becomes the driver of the campaign at the expense of the greater good, than we need to examine that candidate even more closely.  That is where we are this morning after the conclusion of the Pennsylvania Primary where Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama 55% to 45%.

The issue is how she won in yesterday’s primary.  By ripping Barack Obama, who many Democrats feel will be the eventual nominee this fall, she only gives ammunition to the Republicans who drove the nation off the road during the past two terms of President Bush’s time in office. 

Despite Clinton’s victory in the state, overall expectations were on Obama’s side. Fifty-five percent said they expected him, not Clinton, to be the party’s eventual nominee.  And Obama supporters were more confident: just 5 percent of his supporters thought Clinton will win the nomination; by contrast, 22 percent of Clinton supporters said they think Obama will be the nominee.

By undermining Obama in such harsh and deep ways, when she knows full well there is no way she can become the nominee, she is feeding the opposition talking points for the fall.  In addition, she is driving a wedge through the Democratic Party that may not be so easy to mend after she has finally been defeated from her seemingly never-ending quest to chase a dream.  Two-thirds of voters in exit polling in Pennsylvania felt that Clinton attacked Obama unfairly.

Bigger needs and issues, from the Iraq War to the recession that grips the nation, should be the topics that are brought home to the dinner tables of the voters.  Instead a steady stream of ‘nasty’ is wrapped in campaign bunting by the Clinton forces and presented as political discourse.  The whole nation suffers by her tactics.

The fact that Barack Obama leads in the national polls, and has more delegates and popular votes, gives no good reason for superdelegates to view Clinton with more enthusiasm now then they did before her six-week trek through the mud of Pennsylvania.  She has taken the Democratic Party on a path no thoughtful or wise party elders wish to travel. 

We are where we were before Pennsylvania.  Barack Obama is ready to be the nominee, and qualified to be President of the United States.

Who will tell Hillary Clinton it is time to exit the stage?

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,


  1. Patrick permalink
    April 23, 2008 4:58 PM

    Why is it valid to point out that Bush is anti-intellectual,but invalid to suggest Obama is disrespectful to the beliefs of many Americans? Both claims would seem to have similar tones and basis in relity?Could you explain your reasoning further?

  2. Anne permalink
    April 23, 2008 8:02 AM

    Might I add Richard Mellon Scaife. Hillary’s new pal! Need anyone say more.

  3. April 23, 2008 7:15 AM

    I thought everyone had been watching the race.

    How about the use of 9/11 and bin Laden in an ad? How about taking the ‘bitter’ comment and running with it like a rabid Repub? How about doing the GOP work against a fellow Democrat?

  4. Mary permalink
    April 23, 2008 6:45 AM

    If you really want to make your point you need to be less biased. What dirty tactics? Your no better than the people you attack if you offer little more than a personal rant with not specifics. What you are doing is tit for tat. But what is that tat?

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: