Clinton strategist says Obama 'can't win the general election'

The Clinton camp continue to become more and more unhinged with each day that passes.

Though the campaign later argued that he hadn't said it, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief campaign strategist told reporters this morning that Sen. Barack Obama "can't win the general election."

Mark Penn made the comment during a conference call in which the Clinton campaign and two of her supporters -- Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter -- argued that Obama has sent Pennsylvanians a bad signal by allegedly downplaying the importance of that state's April 22 primary. They made the case that this memo from Obama campaign manager David Plouffe (which Nutter said the author should be fired for writing), would come back to haunt Obama in the fall if he is the Democratic nominee.

Because it naturally follows that if Hillary looks like winning Pennsylvania then that state is obviously the most important of the remaining states and the super delegates should assign their votes according to who wins there. We've seen Hillary do all this before as David Plouffe makes clear in the memo he wrote - and for which the aptly named Nutter thinks he should be fired.

Plouffe states:

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.

Is there anything that Plouffe has written there that is not absolutely true? The Clinton camp have moved the goalposts at each and every turn, changing the terms of what is important in the forthcoming general election so that it suits whatever Hillary is, or is not, achieving at the time.

And now we arrive at the ultimate in spin, with Hillary supporter, Nutter, demanding Plouffe should be fired for stating this:

Now that Mississippi is behind us, we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable."

But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be.

If you don't agree that Pennsylvania matters more than anything else then you really have to go.

Obama's campaign have responded to this latest Clinton madness.

Clinton camp statement: Pennsylvania is of particular importance, along with Ohio, Florida and Michigan, because it is dominated by the swing voters who are critical to a Democratic victory in November. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. And no candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.

Obama camp reply: What the Clinton campaign secretly means: PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT WE’VE LOST 14 OF THE LAST 17 CONTESTS AND SAID THAT MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA WOULDN’T COUNT FOR ANYTHING. Also, we’re still trying to wrap our minds around the amazing coincidence that the only “important” states in the nominating process are the ones that Clinton won.

It's one thing for any candidate to attempt to spin a narrative that shows that they are winning, but the Hillary camp are now bordering on laughable. There is simply no consistency to any of their stances. Florida and Michigan won't count... and suddenly not to count them is to "disenfranchise" the voters - which is the worst thing you could ever do... unless you need the support of the super delegates... in which case it's the super delegates solemn duty to ignore the wishes of the voters (disenfranchise them) and choose the candidate "who can beat McCain". Which, by the way, no poll says that Hillary is the best placed person to do this, but what do pollsters know? Who won Pennsylvania and Florida? That's what really matters... give the nomination to whoever won there!

That's not even an exaggeration, that's literally how they are spinning this.

They would be as well simply coming out and telling us that Hillary "really, really really wants it". Because that's what their incoherent arguments are actually boiling down to.

It's about entitlement. She's always believed this is hers and it's very unfair that Obama seems to want to deny her it.

Clinton camp statement: If Barack Obama cannot reverse his downward spiral with a big win in Pennsylvania, he cannot possibly be competitive against John McCain in November.

Obama camp reply: If they are defining downward spiral as a series of events in which the Clinton campaign has lost more votes, lost more contests and lost more delegates to us – I guess we will have to suffer this horribly painful slide all the way to the nomination and then on to the White House.

Thanks for the laughs guys. This was great.

The Obama camp have treated the latest Clinton memo in the only way that it can be treated. As a joke.

Click title for full article (including audio of Mark Penn stating what the Clinton camp now deny that he said.)

Tags: Mark Penn, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, US election 2008, Democratic presidential nominee, Pennsylvania