It's easy to blame losers instead of crediting winners. You see it all the time. Kansas didn't win the basketball national championship, Memphis screwed up and lost it. The Giants only won the Super Bowl because the Patriots stunk. It's always the loser's mistakes and never the victor's skills, it seems.
This line of thinking is common in politics, too. Why can't Barack close the deal? What did Hillary do wrong in Iowa? Etc. When it comes to Monday morning quarterbacking and political punditry, it's all about the loser's shortcomings these days. People like to analyze why one person lost instead of focusing on why the other won.
I think that's crap. I believe in giving credit where credit is due. That puts me in a difficult position this morning. If you've ever read a post here before, you know that I think Barack Obama is our best remaining choice for President and that I believe Hillary Clinton causes cancer of the political soul.
Nonetheless, I'm not going to spend this morning blaming Obama's failures for Pennsylvania. Nor am I going to take the easiest out possible--arguing (perhaps accurately) that Hillary's support came, in large measure, from a bunch of idiots. Nope. I'm going to simply congratulate Hillary on winning.
Clinton won Pennsylvania by 1o points and now Monster can continue its march of shame right into Indiana and beyond. Hell, for all I know Hillary will be able to spread the disease so successfully that she'll end up as our next President. That's still VERY unlikely, but anything can happen.
She did a smash-up job winning Pennsylvania. She withstood a massive spending imbalance. She quickly and forcefully jumped on top of every little Obama act that could be twisted into a negative. She got her picture taken while guzzling brews, talked about her family's involvement with the gun culture and painted her opponent as a snobby elitist in an area where snobby elitists aren't all that popular. She did the better job in the debate of appearing Presidential to the remaining undecided voters and soft Obama supporters. She made all the requisite TV appearances and even snuck in a day-before interview with KO at MSNBC, proving that she didn't mind walking into the lion's den in exchange for face time.
Good work, Monster. You won. You worked your positives, amplified your opponent's real negatives, created some new temporary negatives for him, created more memorable TV ads and convinced Pennsylvanians that you're the "tough" one.
Obviously, Barack Obama didn't do everything right. That's a whole different story for a different day. The fact of the matter is that Clinton did better. The proof is in the pudding. Scoreboard. 10 point lead.
If we wanted to select Presidents based on their ability to run tenacious long-shot campaigns... If we wanted to choose leaders based on their ability to execute old school politics like true professionals... If we wanted to honor those who are really good at playing the game... Well, it that's what we wanted I think Hillary Clinton has made a very strong case for herself since Super Tuesday.
Personally, I have higher aspirations. That's why I won't pull a lever labeled Monster. Obviously, others don't feel that way. I truly believe I'm right and they're wrong, but what the hell... Today, let the fans of Hillary rejoice.
Technorati Tags: hillary, clinton, hillary clinton, obama, barack obama, barack, pennsyvania, primary, PA, election, campaign, politics, monster Del.icio.us Tags: hillary, clinton, hillary clinton, obama, barack obama, barack, pennsyvania, primary, PA, election, campaign, politics, monster Furl Tags: hillary, clinton, hillary clinton, obama, barack obama, barack, pennsyvania, primary, PA, election, campaign, politics, monster