Hillary’s Voice

(cross-posted at Reclusive Leftist)

I’ve been watching politics since 1972. And this is the first campaign I’ve ever seen where winning wasn’t enough. I’m using, of course, the quaintly old-fashioned definition of winning, which means “getting more votes than your opponent.”

The new-fashioned definition of winning, as applied exclusively to Hillary Clinton, means something like “getting n more votes than Obama, where n represents an unattainably high number extracted from the asses of the media/Blogger Boyz in order to make sure that Barry is never seen to be losing.”

This morning the LA Times did its bit with an article helpfully entitled, “What to look for in the Pennsylvania primary.” (A pony?) Bottom line: unless Hillary wins by at least 10%, she will have lost!

How did they come up with 10%? It’s simply the biggest number they think they can get away with. In the past n for Pennsylvania has been much higher — I’ve seen 20, 30% bandied about — but that figure’s been reduced by the fact that everybody knows Barry’s spending something like a quadrillion dollars a day on campaign ads. The ass-extractors have got to at least give a nod in that direction in order to maintain credibility with the other ass-extractors. So now we’re down to 10%.

The Obama campaign/mainstream media/Blogger Boyz consortium has been spinning this kind of nonsense for so many months now that it’s started to seem normal. But it’s not normal. Sure, analyzing the strength of a particular win to gauge a candidate’s overall potential is standard practice, but that’s not what’s going on here. What’s going on here is that no matter how many states Hillary wins, no matter how many BIG states she wins (all of them at this count), no matter how many times she wins despite extravagant outspending by the Obama campaign (two to one three to one in Pennsylvania, I think), it’s never enough.

These aren’t just Clinton Rules. Clinton — the male one — was in Obama’s situation early in 1992. He lost New Hampshire, but it was still counted as the political equivalent of a win because he didn’t lose too badly.

No, these are Hillary Rules. She’s the first serious candidate for President to get this treatment, to have her entire string of wins counted as losses because they weren’t big enough wins. She’s also the first serious candidate for President who’s also a woman. Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Backwards and in high heels, folks. Backwards and in high heels.