It's time to call the Clinton's out on their logic...and the media, too, who's complicit in pushing the faulty logic of the "big states."
The story from Team Hillary goes something like this: Obama can't win the big states like Pennsylvania or Ohio that are critical in the fall.
The media repeat this theme in reporting like this New York Times piece for Thursday:
But just when it seemed that the Democratic Party was close to anointing Mr. Obama as its nominee, he lost yet again in a big general election state, dragged down by his weakness among blue-collar voters, older voters and white voters.
Now think about these "arguments." They represent a false choice. Of course, with two Democrats running in the same race, the vote will be split. Hillary will win some, Obama will win some. Imagine that.
An Obama vs. McCain race is fundamentally different. By Hillary's logic, Obama won't win California or New York because he didn't win it against her.
Is that really plausible? C'mon now.
Will all of the 1.2 million people who voted for Clinton in Pennsylvania not support the Democrat in the fall? Obama will gain not one Hillary voter? Against the Republican? After eight long years of George Bush?
Really, that's plausible? C'mon now.
This logic fails all tests.
It doesn't hold any weight. We know Democrats are turning out in droves this primary season -- the Republicans are not so enthused these days. So all of the sudden, most Democrats, even Hillary supporters, are somehow going to let a Republican win another term in the White House? We're going to let them rule the executive branch? We're going to let them choose more Supreme Court justices? After these eight years? After the bitter memories of the 2000 election?
Obama supporters: please talk this up where you can. Hillary supporters: please realize this false choice. There's no correlation at all between winning a state in the primaries versus the general election.