Unraveling the Spin

When Senator Barack Obama won in Iowa, Senator Clinton’s campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates." When he won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win. When he won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of Blacks. When he won predominantly White, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election. When he won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Senator Obama is a stronger candidate against Senator John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.

And now that Senator Obama has won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count. But the facts are clear. For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, he has won more delegates, more states, and more votes. Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Senator Obama would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

With his overwhelming victory in the Mississippi primary Tuesday, his lead in earned delegates is now wider than it was on March 3rd, before the contests in Ohio and Texas (Senator Obama actually won four more delegates in Texas than did Senator Clinton, so it was not the victory she claims). As the number of remaining delegates dwindles, Senator Clinton's path to the nomination seems less and less plausible. While Senator Clinton’s campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who the Democratic nominee will be. Throughout this entire process, the Clinton campaign has cherry-picked states, diminished caucuses, and moved the goal posts to create a shifting, twisted rationale for why they should win the nomination despite winning fewer primaries, fewer states, fewer delegates, and fewer votes. The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters. Senator Obama has won twice as many states, large and small, in every region of the country -- many by landslide margins. And this movement is expanding the base of the Democratic Party by attracting new voters in record numbers and bringing those who had lost hope back into the political process.

So the person that has managed and run a better campaign is leading the more “experienced politician”. Actually Senator Obama is more experienced when you look and see that he had to campaign for city council, state senator and U.S. senator, where as Senator Clinton basically won her seat on President Clinton’s name. So who is more experienced?