Would someone please ask Howard Wolfson what he's talking about?
The Clinton campaign, for months now, has pushed this seemingly true, but logically flawed, notion that if Obama loses big states like Pennsylvania to Hillary, then that means he "can't win" big states, aka can't win big states against McCain in the fall. Here is what top Clinton advisers Wolfson had to say, again, yesterday:
"If Sen. Obama can't win in Pennsylvania, it will be another sign he's unable to win in large states Democrats need to win in a general election," says Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson.On its face you go, wow, he's right. I mean, if Obama can't win Pennsylvania then we're screwed in the fall - that's a lot of electoral votes for McCain. The only problem in Wolfson's logic, and he knows it, is that while Obama is expected to lose Pennsylvania to Hillary in the Democratic primary next Tuesday, that has nothing to do with the results of Obama vs. McCain in the general election. Yes, Hillary's people are lying to you, yet again. Let me walk you through the logic with an example.
1. I have a choice between brownies and cookies for dessert. I choose brownies. Wolfson is trying to tell me that this means I hate cookies, that I'll never choose cookies in the future, and even if I have a choice between cookies and broccoli for dessert in the fall, I'll choose broccoli then because I didn't choose cookies today.
You see, Wolfson is making a common error that's understandable coming from the Hillary campaign. Most Democrats are not going to help John McCain become president out of spite simply because Hillary didn't win the Democratic nomination. In the real world, Democrats support their party and their nominee - they don't take their toys and go home just because their first choice in the primary didn't win.