In the Arena

Obama Nerves

A few days ago, I criticized the Clinton spinsters for stupid, implausible horse race expectations spin–they said Obama had to win everywhere in order to be considered a winner on March 4–and so it’s only fair to note that Obama spinster David Plouffe is now doing the very same thing:

If they do not win Texas and Ohio by healthy double digit margins – and they led by healthy double digit margins as recently as two weeks ago – they will be facing almost impossible odds to reverse the delegate math.

Plouffe’s statement is marginally less obnoxious than the Clinton spin, since it happens to be true: If Clinton doesn’t start Winning…Big…Everywhere, she’s not going to win the nomination…But the Obama campaign has been notable for usually refusing to indulge in this sort of spin-nonsense–and so it’s notable that they’re doing it now. Gotta wonder: Are they worried that tomorrow won’t go so well?

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

blog comments powered by Disqus