Clinton wins at Home

Sen. Clinton in a self congratulatory moment(Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

Amid brisk turnout, Clinton won a victory that many polls had predicted and which the New York senator had to have.—Bill Nichols

Sen. Clintonwins! But wait a minute wasn’t she supposed to?

That’s right Sen. Clinton was supposed to win Pennsylvania. She has familial ties there and has been projected to win there since March by a 12 point lead no less. Last night in her victory speech she invoked her father and her grandfather, who use to work in a Pennsylvania mill (much like Sen. Edwards’ mill worker father), names as testament that she was one of them a bitter, religious, gun hugging small town girl who’s made it big.

Ich bin ein Pennsylvanian!

So why all of the hoopla? It’s the continuation of the fairly tale the classic victim card Sen. Clinton is portraying herself as the underdog the poor little white woman running against that big Black man with those good speeches and all that money.

If you remember Sen. Clinton at the beginning of this campaign was the candidate of inevitability she was supposed to win, she was destined to win and she was going to win not just the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania but she was supposed to win 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, too.

So why are Democrats acting as if they are surprised that Sen. Clinton won the state of Pennsylvania? In a word perception.

The Clintons understand all to well that everything is about perception. Nothing is real unless they say that it is real. Sniper fire now that was real, Clinton real!

It’s what President Bill Clinton says about what is, is! Tell him what you think is, is and he’ll take your is, redefine it and tell you what is really is! Whew!

It is totally the defining of reality by crafty lawyerly wordsmithing in which a step off of a curb is not really that at all, no a step off of a city curb becomes a multimillion dollar law suit against the city for neglecting to maintain potholes.

So whether it’s sniper fire over Bosnia or celebrating a Pennsylvania victory, that was hers to lose in the first place, the perception must be that she is the come back kid who traversed dangers and fought off the advances of a Black man even though all that he was after was her voting constituents.

It also struck me as odd that a political contest in which Democrats, the exemplars of gender and racial equality, where in fact voting along gender and racial lines. Does gender and race matter for progressive inclusive Democrats who are above their rival’s the prejudice, sexist Republicans? Apparently it does!

In some of the exit polling voters where suggesting that gender or race didn’t matter but than wasn’t supported by the actual voting and in addition to that isn’t the media overly concerned with how the vote is playing out demographically this elect? Is it hot in here or is it only me?

In other words I’m I the only one who sees the irony of this? Democrats no matter how they portray themselves are just as prejudice and sexist as anyone else!

The Clinton campaign was wise to play the race and gender cards in Pennsylvania along with the Ich bin ein Pennsylvanian card of Sen. Clinton’s father and grandfather. Those tactics won Sen. Clinton the day.

As the Clinton’s would say a win is a win no matter by what percentage, no matter what is, is and no matter if they exacerbate and inflame gender and racial volatiles in America on their way back to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. And apparently Pennsylvanians agree.