I love it when Stephen Colbert humorously casts light on a serious topic. That makes all the hours I spend watching The Colbert Report, rather than, say, reading the New York Times, seem a lot more productive.
Recently Colbert had a great riff on Hillary Clinton's claim that she should get the superdelegate vote because she's more electable – having won the big important states that are crucial to winning the presidency.
Here's some of his right-on observations, as I recollect them (maybe mixed in with my own notions):
--Clinton says she can win the presidency because she won California, New York, and Ohio. But McCain also won those states. So doesn't this mean that both Clinton and McCain are going to be elected president?
--Clinton is all proud that she won a few big states, while Obama has won many small states. Yet if you mashed the many small states Obama has won into a few big states, wouldn't this come out to be the same thing?
--Clinton claims that she's electable because she won in Democratic strongholds like California and New York. But if these are really "strongholds," won't any Democratic candidate win those states? Like, Obama.
Obama's blog does a more refined job of taking on Hillary's arguments in "Debunking the Clinton Campaign's Dubious 'Big State' Spin."
And my new favorite web site, Pollster.com, shows how Clinton and Obama currently fare against McCain in some big states that supposedly are Hillary country.