Why? Why didn't she concede last night? I understand she did very very well in Kentucky, but Obama now has the majority of the pledge delegates. She _cannot_ win in the pledged delegate contest. So instead of conceding, she comes up with a new, ridiculous argument: She's winning the popular vote. Apparently she uses Bush's "fuzzy math".
From Daily Kos:
Aside from the idiocy of the argument itself -- 1) this is a delegate race, and 2) unlike the 2000 presidential election, you can't compare the popular vote from contest to contest since each state has different rules (caucus or primaries, open, closed, or hybrid -- the way the Clinton campaign and its supporters shamelessly stretch this argument is almost embarrassing.
Clinton is "leading" the meaningless popular vote, but only if:
1. You count the unsanctioned contests in Florida and Michigan, where candidates were not allowed to campaign;
2. You give Obama zero votes in Michigan's Soviet-style election, where Clinton was essentially the only name on the ballot; and
3. You don't count the caucuses in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington.
What next, is she going to tell Kentuckians "Some have said your votes didn’t matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake."? Oh wait,
she did say that. Who the hell said that allowing every vote to count is a mistake? Who is she accusing of this? "Some"? The voices in her head?
Now, it’s especially sweet tonight because Kentucky has a knack for picking presidents.
This state delivered two terms to a president named Clinton.
And it’s often been said, as Kentucky goes, so goes the nation.
Really? Its been said often? That's new to me. Apparently so goes
West Virginia,
Ohio,
Maine,
Vermont,
Google, and
Steve Buscemi