Ramblings of Noah Arney

Political backtracking is amusing. 

 Hillary Clinton’s campaign has changed position on the upcoming primary so many times I have a hard time keeping up.

Back when she was going fairly strong, but had lost a few races to Obama, and foresaw loosing a few more, she declared that when she won in Texas and Ohio that her campaign would be shown to be great (yes I’m editorializing a bit, but not that much).  It wasn’t a huge stretch, she had double digit leads in both states.  She was a shoe-in in those states, and they both had a lot of delegates.  It gave her campaign time to breath before people said her campaign was dead (they still did, but that’s beside the point).

And then Obama started to climb in the polls in those states.  Her campaign started saying that those two states really weren’t that important.  Then they said that they only have to take one of the two in order to prove the strength of the campaign.

Now the newest word is that Obama would need to win all four primaries that day for it to dent Hillary’s campaign.

Lets think about this.  What they are saying is that if Obama wins only three of the four (even if he has both Texas and Ohio), that Hillary will declare victory.  So Obama needs to win 14 primaries in a row in order to equal one win by Hillary….  Somehow this doesn’t sound quite right.

Hillary has taken 11 states so far.  Barack has taken 24.  There are 15 states left.  Four of them are on Tuesday.  If Barack takes only three, and Hillary takes one, then we will have Hillary with 12, Barack with 27, and 11 left.  Does it seem strange to anyone else that Hillary would declare victory even with Barack having won over twice as many states as her?