I don't think anyone is saying it was NOT close, nor dismissing the record breaking number of votes that both candidates earned in this primary.
My point, however, is that it is not a tie. I will clarify - this diary is in response to another that put forth the argument that this primary had ended in a tie. That argument "turns a blind eye" to the reality that this is a race for delegates, and that this race has not ended in a tie.
You know that diary the other day about Supporters and "Supporters"? Do you think there are losers and Losers? This isn't snark - I'm just honestly wondering, and I mean no disrespect to anyone here, or either candidate, but what do you call the person who is, well, not the winner of a contest?
Rahm Emmanuel said a few weeks ago something to the effect of "Whether the winner wins depends on how the loser looses." I don't think he meant to imply that either of our candidates would be a "Looser" with a capital L....
What is the politically correct way to say it? "The one who did not succeed in winning"?
I do have some sympathy for this perspective. However - think about the way this sounds... Will you be willing to grant John McCain a week or two to get used to loosing, and to soften the blow to his supporters, after he looses the general election in November?
We are informed and engaged constituents committed to a brilliant and inspiring leader. We are NOT going to fold our tents and hop on board Obama's train just cause that's what we are told to do by people who, frankly, are experts at losing elections.
Therefore, the respectful thing to do on the very day Hillary Clinton wins yet another primary at the end of the season is not to push the superdelegates, nor to celebrate Obama's historic win.
I can't think of a better night than the night he wins to celebrate Obama's historic win. We can celebrate Obama's winning yet another primary at the end of the season and celebrate Senator Clinton's historic campaign at the same time.