BartBlog

March 12, 2008

David Sirota: The False Assumptions In the “Electability” Arguments

Filed under: Commentary — Tags: , , , , , — Volt @ 7:11 am

David Sirota, Credo Action, March 11, 2008

It seems the longer the presidential nominating contest goes on between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the more idiotic the pontificating and candidate spinning – especially when it comes to the so-called “electability” argument.

The Clinton campaign, as exemplified by surrogate Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) this morning on Meet the Press when he said:

“She’s clearly the strongest candidate in the states that Democrats must win to have a chance. Look, it’s great that Barack Obama is doing wonderfully well in Wyoming and Utah and, and places like that, but there’s no chance we’re going to carry those states. Whether he gets 44 percent as opposed to 39 percent doesn’t matter, but we’re not going to carry those states. We do have a chance to carry the big four. We’ve got to in three of the big four. Hillary Clinton’s the strongest candidate to do that. That’s been proven by the voters in the–those states and hopefully by Pennsylvania as well.”

Let’s put aside the fact that the Clinton campaign is insulting the importance of a huge swath of the American heartland – a talking point that has been repeated throughout this campaign by Clinton surrogates. Let’s just take a look at the two questionable assumptions inherent in this “electability” claim.

Read More Here

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress