Late Results from the State of Denial

She didn’t really lose in Iowa.

Iowa was a big vote for “Change,” just like she said, and she got a big share of that vote, which only figures, because she was for “Change” before anybody. She’s been for “Change” for years.

New Hampshire was a great victory, of course, and so was Nevada. For a while there, we thought that Nevada might not turn out to be a great victory, or a victory at all. But it still wouldn’t have been a loss, not after all the voter intimidation from the other side, plus where they put some of the caucuses to try to get an extra advantage. So even if she’d lost in Nevada, she wouldn’t have.

She didn’t really lose South Carolina either. I mean, it’s like Bill said: Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, and Jesse Jackson never got the nomination either. Not that Barack Obama is exactly the same as Jesse Jackson -- don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying…

Anyway, she just clobbered him on Super Tuesday. There were a few places where she technically didn’t get as many votes as he did, but those were caucus states, and everybody knows how unrepresentative caucus states are. All those people who have to work for a living and can’t spend a whole afternoon or evening at a caucus? You know they’d have voted for her, so those aren’t losses.

Georgia was a Super Tuesday state that wasn’t a caucus, true, but you certainly can’t count Georgia as a loss, not with such a large African-American community down there, and all of them feeling so much pride for Obama -- it’s not really a fair test. So Georgia doesn’t count.

Same for Louisiana that next weekend.

Nebraska? Washington? Caucus states. Nothing but activists.

Maine? Another caucus state -- and it snowed!

Then there’s Maryland, and Virginia. You can’t count Maryland or Virginia as losses, because everybody expected him to win there. That’s the absolute truth: Once he went from 20 points down to 10 points ahead, everybody expected him to win. And if it isn’t a surprise, it doesn’t count.

Besides, did you notice how she didn’t say a word about either of those -- or D.C. either -- the night the results came in? If you don’t acknowledge them as losses the very same night, then they’re not losses -- that’s just a fact.

Let’s see…

Where else? I’m sure I left out a few, but it’s been pretty much the same thing all across the country.

Those are states Democrats never win anyway, so what difference do they make?

Those were just independents voting in the Democratic primary because they were bored, so what difference do they make?

And don’t forget: Those were just Republicans crossing over trying to make mischief, so what difference do they make? They voted for Obama to try to run against the weaker candidate in November. So the more votes he gets, that just shows how much weaker he is, and how much stronger she is.

Like she said, those are nothing but speed bumps on the road to the nomination.

Which is exactly why she’s on such a roll right now. In fact, the way I look at it, she could go through this whole campaign totally undefeated!

I’m still not sure why she’s behind in delegates.

# # #

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Comments

[Lester]

Mark Penn agrees with you, especially the excellent point about those meangless caucuses...but wait. The people of New Mexico have spoken!We won that caucus and that's the way a democracy should work.

[rickhorowitz]

Lester: Now you're getting it! See how easy it is?

Rick