Hillary Clinton PA Primary Win

Here come the naysayer’s

Although Hillary Clinton won the PA primary with a 10 point margin, the media is continuing to focus on Barack Obama as their candidate of choice. The Seattle Times article: “Clinton faces uphill battle despite win in Pennsylvania primary” , written by Bill Lambrecth, (St. Louis Post Dispatch), spends more time discussing how Obama will win the nomination than reporting on the following facts: neither candidate will have enough delegates or super-delegates to clinch the nomination prior to the convention and the popular vote is still up for grabs. Additionally, from an historical standpoint, a candidate has not won in the general election without taking key states such as California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania – all won by Hillary Clinton. The party statesmen (emphasis on last syllable), should understand that history repeats itself.
Appearing next to the article is a poll, yes or no, titled: “Does Sen. Clinton's margin of victory against Sen. Obama in the Pennsylvania primary justify her continued candidacy? This poll is placed directly underneath additional articles on the subject, one of which asks the same question. Can they be more obvious? Can they be serious?

Obama does not have an impressive lead over Clinton, but a slight margin, in a race that cannot be decided until the convention. No candidate in their right mind would abandon their candidacy given the facts. Watching CNN, MSNBC and Fox coverage of the primary, one could not help but get the impression that it was the voters at fault, those pesky white men, those older women, and of course, bible and gun-toting, blue collar workers the pundits kept worrying over while reviewing exit polls. When white men will pick a woman over another candidate, that candidate has serious problems (check the results from the Bluest State’s last election to understand that white men will vote for anyone, in droves, especially if the opposition is a woman). Objectively, the problem Obama faced in Pennsylvania was simply this: the more the people get to know about him, the less likely they are to vote for “Hope” that is virtually unknown. Throw in an elitist remark aimed directly at the DNC’s bread and butter, and that nails the proverbial coffin on his candidacy shut.