Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results
First of all, you have to give Hillary Clinton a ton of credit. Whether you agree with the way she has run the campaign or not, she is a fighter and no matter what happens she keeps getting back up.
Her campaign theme song should definitely be "I Will Survive" by Gloria Gaynor. I'm surprised they haven't used that on the campaign trail yet (it would also help because it's a rallying cry for women everywhere -- if you don't believe me, just play it at any bar or club and see how the women in there react).
I come away from each of these primary nights shaking my head at how well she has sprung back up. You do have to confess there is a certain Rocky quality to her campaign (they should also play "Eye of the Tiger" at campaign stops to rally the men).
Now, a lot of that admiration will be washed away the next time she runs one of those 3AM ads or pretends to be concerned about what Barack Obama's neighbor or pastor said. But for the moment being, in the afterglow of yet another surprising showing (at least surprising in my eyes), I have to give credit where credit is due.
So, of course, I was curious as to how she did it. I dove into the numbers and for every positive number for Senator Clinton there was an equal and opposite number for Senator Obama. The "bitter" flap didn't seem to make much of a difference. Obama didn't do as well in affluent, highly educated voters as he usually does, but it was close. Clinton did better with late deciding voters (are these the voters that the fear ads work on?). But no one number blew me away.
Except one category that Hillary Clinton almost always does well in: white women. She did even better in this category than she normally does, plus Pennsylvania has more people in this category. Senator Clinton won 65% of the white women vote. In a state as white as Pennsylvania, it's hard to overcome that good a showing in that large a category.
Now, Obama has overcome that barrier before in plenty of white states and he has won many states where the majority of the voters were women (which are most states). But when a giant chunk of the electorate comes out in that large a number to one side, you'd really have to clean up everywhere else to compete.
I know Geraldine Ferraro got in trouble for saying Barack Obama was lucky to be a black man running in this race. Obviously we understand what she means, that winning large percentages of the black vote helps in some key states. What was frustrating was that she didn't seem to understand that it also cost him plenty of votes and that historically a black man has been anything but lucky when running for a nationwide office (or in many cases, statewide office).
It's obviously not just the color of Barack Obama's skin. African-American voters didn't turn out in large numbers for Alan Keyes in the 812 races he's been in. Michael Steele didn't get any love in Maryland when he ran for governor and neither did Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania. Obama has obviously attracted large portions of the African-American vote because of his stance on the issues, his viability and his personal appeal as a candidate. Once he crossed all those thresholds, then his race helped him with black voters.
The same can now be said of Senator Clinton. If it was so easy for a woman to become president, how come they're 0-43? Obviously Senator Clinton put herself in the ballgame by running an effective campaign and holding views that appeal to the voters. Having said that, after she crossed these thresholds, it has helped her that she is a woman. To deny that would be a little silly. Sixty-five percent of the white women vote goes a long way.
Let me repeat that this doesn't take anything away from Senator Clinton's accomplishments. And some can argue that women should be proud to stand together to give their preferred candidate a better shot. But would she still be in this race if she wasn't a woman? My guess is no.
Read more reactions from Huffington Post bloggers to the Pennsylvania Primary results
Follow Cenk Uygur on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheYoungTurks
You cannot say the same thing about Hillary. The press bashes her constantly. She is damned no matter what she does. Sexism is an acceptable part of our culture. Just look at the articles at this site today. The message is that people didn't vote for her, they voted against him. It's has an underlying sexist tone.
So if she has a solid base she deserves it. She earned it over time. It has nothing to do with luck.
Did the media call her out for courting Richard Mellon Scaife?
How about for trashing Democratic Activists?
Or for threating the people of Iran with annihilation for a perceived threat embraced by neocons?
Obamanation is just that an abomination!
His wife wasn't proud of being an American for the first 43 years of her life; BO's bitter comments against all Americans working class or not; his 20 year support of his Pastor Wright; just for starters will keep me from supporting him.
You can't tell me that in 20 years Obamanation never heard a negative word spoken by his friend and Pastor, Pastor Wright? or that he never was curious to check out Wright's DVDs sold at the gift shop at the Church? Puleeze!!!! Wake up people . . . His friend Wright probably gave the Obamanation's DVDs as Christmas gifts.
Hillary has a huge fan base and quite a few intelligent supporters who stand behind her. Get used to it folks!
and
"But would she still be in this race if she wasn't a woman? My guess is no."
Keep repeating that. To yourself. After a few days, try it out on your mother, your aunts, your daughters, your wife, the next woman you run into...
Let me know how that works out for you.
That's one of the main reasons I didn't support her in the caucus in my state. I want the first woman candidate and President to be one who got there based on her own accomplishments, not on the accomplishments and name recognition of her husband!
If I HAVE to vote for her versus McCain, I will - but with GREAT reluctance and trepidation. She's a Republican in Democratic clothing and I don't trust her as far as I can throw her.
But let's take race and gender out of the equation, let's look at accoplishments in their respective Senate careers. Sen Clinton has 4 more years "experience" than Sen Obama does.
How many bills with their respective names on it passed the Senate?
Clinton: zip, zilch, nada
Obama: 2
with Sen Lugar Obama passed the bill to secure loose nukes
Obama passed the Senate ethics bill
Clinton, however, preferred to be a fighter engaging in time-tested gridlock politics.
To me this gives a whole new meaning to "Yes we can"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/19/wuspols219.xml
What woman would state that she would obliterate a whole nation of human beings for the act of one madman? The whole point of a woman in charge is to have peace in the world. She would have no qualms about bringing about a nuclear holocaust. Isn't that what JFK tried so hard to avoid? Have we been living on borrowed time? This is the peace on earth this woman would bring?
And no, this time she did not "misspeak".