Here’s a portion of an e-mail that Obama campaign manger David Plouffe sent me and countless others. Just thought that everybody needed to read this:

Dear Adam,

When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it’s not the number of states you win, it’s “a contest for delegates.”

When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it’s really about which states you win.

When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.

When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn’t count because they won’t be competitive in the general election.

When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri — general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain — the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as “latte-sipping” elitists.

And now that we’ve won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.

But the facts are clear.

For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.

Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.

We’re ready to take on John McCain. But we also need to build operations in places like Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, and Oregon that will hold their primaries in April and May.

The end of the portion I’ve included is especially interesting. The Clintons are talking up Pennsylvania like it’s the end all, but Indiana and North Carolina follow up a week or so later on the same day. Combined, the states have more delegates than Pennsylvania. Oregon is also an important contest, and one which Obama should win handily. I guess what I’m saying is this: Let’s not continue to allow the Clintons and the media to keep running their spin game on us, moving the goalposts and skewing the realities of this race in the process.

What a night! Man, this is without a doubt the single most impressive night of Barack Obama’s astonishing political career. Here’s an excerpt from the front page of Drudge that sums up his dominance:

In the Chesapeake Rout, according to exit polls in Maryland, Obama won:
Latino Voters By Six Points: 53-47
All Religions (Including Catholics)
All Age Groups (Including Seniors)
All Regions
All Education Levels
And Women by TWENTY ONE POINTS…

But wait — there’s more. Obama won the White vote in Virginia. Say what!? OBAMA WON THE WHITE VOTE IN VIRGINIA! I really can’t believe that shit. A Black candidate named Barack Obama won White voters in Dixieland. He also apparently won Latino voters in Virginia, a bigger part of the electorate there than you might expect. And let’s not even talk about how handily he beat her in the District. Not pretty for HRC. Not at all.

What I’m curious to see is how the delusional Clinton spinning machine will play this latest round of defeats.

Continue Reading »

I actually like this Paul Jenkins/Huff Post piece better than the Frank Rich one from yesterday. Here’s an excerpt from “Clinton Spinning Into Twilight Zone,” which you absolutely have to read:

It is in defeat that the Clinton PR fails, sounding awkwardly bitter and blaming everything from the caucus system to sexism, to open primaries, to independents, to black women, to white men, to red states, to young people, to educated people, to rich people for their loss. This was silly after Iowa, and is plainly ridiculous now: at one point or another in his 19-state winning romp, Obama has prevailed in primaries and caucuses; among white men and white women; states in the South, Northeast, Midwest and West; rural states, urban states and suburbs; college kids and working class retirees. It has been a remarkably encompassing and national success so far for Obama, the Clintons’ race-baiting jabs notwithstanding (Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina too, Bill helpfully emphasized).

The Clinton operation’s dismissive attitude towards the states that she loses (”didn’t campaign there,” “caucus!”) feels uncomfortably like a post-facto snub by the aggrieved party in a break up (”she’s not really my type anyway;” “he snores SO loudly;” “did I tell you I cheated on him once?”).

The whole thing packs that kind of punch. Definitely worth 5-10 minutes of your day.