TIME magazine’s Amy Sullivan, a prominent Religious Leftist, is again shamelessly shilling for Barack Obama with a story asking, “Why Didn’t More Women Vote for Hillary?”
One of the Democratic campaign’s great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn’t the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two. And while both Senators boasted historic candidacies, Obama’s seemed to resonate more deeply, translating into 70%, 80% and even 90% of the black vote in primary contests. No one expected Clinton to sweep 90% of Democratic women voters, but 60% wouldn’t have been an unreasonable accomplishment for the first woman to have a serious chance of winning the presidency. Instead, Clinton won just over a majority of women’s votes.
TalkLeft’s Big Tent Democrat notes a large part of the answer is that enough black women vote in Democratic primaries to make it difficult for Hillary Clinton to have won 60% of the women’s vote overall.
As for myself, I was amused that Amy Sullivan portrayed US Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) as a swing voter. Even redefining “swing voter” to mean “swinging within the Democratic Party,” Amy Sullivan fails to mention that Klobuchar endorsed Obama after he easily won her state on February 5. That was a sequence TIME readers do not need to know about.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
Did you see the Mark Morford (spit) column linked over at LGF? Apparently O! is a “Lightbringer” — a “spiritually advanced being” who will bring us into a new age.
Now, Morford’s clearly brain damaged, but, cheez, the cult is getting thick.
More good news from the folks who produce Pravda.
Ever since Time hired its current editor, it has gone from a respectable magazine to the obedient mouthpiece of the DNC.
No need to let the readers know that a politician weathervaned. Upsets the flow of the narrative.
[…] Protein Wisdom – TIME’s Amy Sullivan is back in the bag for Obama [Karl] […]
You know, Karl, if you look at Time as a reliable mouthpiece for the DNC, the term swing voter is appropriate.
Not only that, but I think you neglected to mention the final paragraphs that attempted to hand out congratulations all round and thus smooth over the ugliness characterized the Democratic primary process.
Yes, jdm – ‘We’re all still friends after this barrom brawl – right?’ I am sure that is going to work perfectly over the next five months. *roll eyes*
Whithering fig trees.
Was that before or after “How the Gingrich stole Christmas”?
Despite knowing damn well the federal government shutdown barely affected anyone who wasn’t a federal employee (and hardly all of those), and that it was concocted by Bill Clinton and the AFL-CIO to try to get Democrats back in control of Congress in 1996, TIME ran a cover blaming a green-filtered Gingrich and blaming him for it all.
…featuring a green-filtered Gingrich and blaming him for it all.