FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Despite being hopelessly behind in pledged delegates and with only three primaries to go, Hillary Clinton refuses to give up. In fact, she continues to insist that she is more electable than Barack Obama.
Clinton told voters in South Dakota yesterday that her wins in swing states and her strong vote margins among certain groups make her more likely to beat John McCain in the general election.
At the same time, her campaign sent uncommitted superdelegates a letter with polling data showing how she could compete better than Obama in the fall. They pointed to her wins in states like Ohio and West Virginia along with her strong showings among older women, Hispanics and rural voters.
While Clinton has toned down her attacks on Obama in recent weeks, she has implied that if he becomes the nominee, the Democrats could lose in November. Clinton insists she's the stronger candidate against McCain "based on every analysis of every bit of research and every poll that's been taken and every state a Democrat has to win." Not true at all.
There are polls that show Clinton in a close race with McCain, many within the sampling error. And more importantly there are polls that show Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than she does. Sometimes facts are very inconvenient.
Clinton also claims to have won the most popular votes – but that's only if you include Michigan and Florida, states that were stripped of all their delegates after breaking the party's rules. Their votes don't count. Obama actually leads by 570,000 in the popular vote, and is now just 45 delegates shy of clinching the nomination.
Here’s my question to you: Has Hillary Clinton's continual drumbeat of "I'm more electable" gained her any traction?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Dale from Alexandria, Virginia writes:
Unfortunately, it has gained traction (just as anything that is repeated enough). Fortunately, how much traction it gains is immaterial at this point as it is impossible for Clinton to catch up no matter what type of bizzaro math you use.
Edgar from Los Angeles writes:
Of course, because it is the truth and nothing but the truth! She won all the Big Blue States and all the swing states, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and Florida! Can you deny her of the nomination? I don't think so.
Jeanie from Ava, Missouri writes:
Let's see, she's had solidly behind her the huge "Clinton Machine", former president Bill, BIG political operatives like Ed Rendell setting up the vote in Pa., FOX News network et al, Sean Hannity pumping the radio airwaves, ditto Rush Limbaugh, ditto Laura Ingraham, the militant feminist army, a couple whole states full of racists, pass after pass on subversive shots at Obama, campaign spokesmen that have stretched reason to the point our brains have snapped, Obama's been a true gentleman and given her wide berth. Point is: She should be ahead with all this "advantage". She's behind.
Sen. Clinton is more electable and obviously more qualified and mature in her decision-making than Barack Obama. She should leave the back-stabbing Democrats and run as an independent.
S. from Amarillo, Texas writes:
Just because she is delusional doesn't mean we are.
Margot from San Francisco writes:
If she thinks she is more electable, then she just doesn't have a clue about how much most Republicans hate her and her husband. I'm a Clinton fan and I've seen the bugged-out, wild eyed, red-faced fits that Republicans always seem to have whenever the Clinton name is mentioned. It can be so bad that many times I've wondered if I would have to perform CPR!