An argument I keep hearing from Hillary Clinton and her people is this: While Obama is winning primaries (and caucuses) in states that haven’t been won by Democrats in a general election in ages, Clinton has been winning in the states that “a Democrat can win” in the general.
Presumably, this is a plea to the superdelegates, whose overwhelming support Clinton needs to gain the party’s nomination. There’s really no other way she can get it at this point.
But Obama is still a Democrat. Why would we not expect him to win traditionally Democratic states? And wouldn’t we want the candidate who has a chance at winning some states Democrats don’t usually win in addition to the mainstays?
Not only does this line of thinking require an incredible leap of logic to entertain, its promotion by the Clinton campaign underlines the difference between the divisive, them-vs-us approach that Clinton seems to want to take and the “new kind of politics,” that of listening, of compromise, of civility, of unity, that Obama is trying to promote.
I’ll take the latter, thank you.