Hillary: "battleground states" include AZ, AR, CA, NY, NJ, MA, OK, TN, RI

I know I'm a broken record on this point, but I am absolutely mystified at how Hillary can count solid red states (Arizona, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee) and solid blue states (California, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island) -- two of which are her home states -- as among her triumphant "battleground state" victories, yet none of Obama's victories "count." How absolutely bizarre and ridiculous. Is she seriously contending that Obama would lose New York in November, or that she, Hillary, can win Oklahoma? Good grief. What a maddeningly, transparently bogus argument!

The thing is, I actually think recent events, including tonight's results, have opened up some legitimate lines of attack for the Clinton spinmeisters. They need to stick with those, and stop with this indefensible, self-serving nonsense about which states "count."

Comments

[Herb]

This fits with the state motto.
Ohio: The State of Betrayal

[Andrew H]

Did she just list all the states where she has won? I think she may have just done that. I agree that it's a silly argument to make but I'm not sure there was any logic other than let's just list everywhere I won.

[Brendan Loy]

Yes, that's what she did. But she clearly labeled them as battleground states: "We need a Democratic nominee who can win the battleground states just like Ohio, and that is what we've done. We've won... [list of states]."

I might give it a more charitable interpretation if this hadn't been a consistent line coming out of the Clinton camp, but they've made the argument before. I sure hope Hillary's campaign strategy doesn't involve making sure Massachusetts is a swing state...