Clinton Casts Wide Net of Exaggeration, Claims to Lead in “Every Poll”

When Bill made this claim the other day I thought he was getting carried away and being delusional. But now Hillary has started saying it as well.

“You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis, of every bit of research and every poll that has been taken and every state that a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall,” she said.

The only problem with this claim is that it is utterly untrue.

This is Hillary finally detaching herself from reality and now demanding that reality be what she imagines it to be rather than what it actually is.

“Who is the stronger candidate against John McCain? We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historic election, only to lose,” she said.

If the Democrats do lose come November there will be many people, myself included, who will lay a fair portion of the blame for that outcome on Hillary and her inability to quit when it became mathematically impossible for her to win. Which apparently even she appears to be now conceding; as she is not claiming victory on the delegate count, or on the popular vote, but on which candidate is best placed to beat John McCain. Unfortunately for Hillary, the polls say that the person best equipped to do that is Barack Obama.

However, as the end approaches, she is becoming utterly deluded, making monstrously false claims and comparing the decision not to seat the delegates of Michigan and Florida - a decision which she formally approved of - to the struggles of the early suffragists and likened the primaries of those states to the fraudulent election that took place in Zimbabwe.

But her claim to be ahead in "every poll" simply flips her out into wacko land:

With or without participants in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington (i.e., states where voters’ preferences were expressed by gathering in corners and the like, and whose numbers can be estimated but are not pinpointed), and with the totals for both Florida (whose primary was unsanctioned by the Democratic Party, with the consent of all the candidates, and where no one campaigned) and Michigan (also unsanctioned, and where Obama’s name was not even on the ballot), Clinton’s claim that more people have “voted” for her is factual. But her claim to be “ahead” depends entirely on a tally for the Michigan primary that is distinctly North Korean: Clinton, 328,309; Obama, 0. However, if the bulk of the 238,168 Michiganders who voted “uncommitted” are assumed to have been Obama supporters—a reasonable assumption—then Obama leads by every possible reckoning. And if only Florida is included, then Obama leads whether or not those four caucuses are counted.

It's getting harder and harder to work out what she's actually talking about now. She's changed the way a winner should be decided so many times that its starting to make my head spin.

Click title for full article.

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