Time to Put up or Shut Up

With the DNC rolling to a close, there have been quite a few rousing moments over the past couple days. Perhaps most thrilling for Hillary Clinton supporters was seeing their favorite girl get up there and deliver one of the best speeches of her life. Many were left crying afterwards, wondering and wishing that things could have turned out differently for Hillary. There's no denying that the Hillary supporters are a hard working bunch. During the primaries, they put in countless hours to get their candidate elected. They put their hearts and souls into the Clinton campaign, and just like that, it was all over.

That's certainly not easy to deal with, and it's something you can't really describe unless you experience it. Even so, the time has come. It's time to either put up or shut up for the former Clinton supporters. Many (up to 33% according to some accounts) have been reluctant to offer their support to the Obama campaign. Some figure they just won't vote at all in November, others are so angry that they're seriously considering voting for McCain.

What I would ask them, and what any other sensible person would ask them, is what does that prove? What would voting for McCain prove in November? That you as a voter are incapable of making informed decisions based on the issues? That you are too emotionally attached to one candidate, to the point that it blinds your political perspective? That the democratic party knows nothing about loyalty, nothing about values? That the Republicans can capture the White House for another four years by doing absolutely nothing but sit back and watch you come to their side?

Hillary Clinton was a fabulous candidate, but her campaign is over. That is what all of the former supporters need to realize. She WILL NOT be elected President in 2008, no matter who you do or do not vote for. But that doesn't mean she's dying. Hillary Clinton remains as strong a political dynamo as ever. Some Clinton supporters are outraged over the fact that Obama didn't select Hillary to be his running mate. But even that outrage makes no sense. When you think about it, would you rather have Hillary employed in an advisory capacity to Obama, or pushing her own legislation and Obama's legislation through Congress right on the front lines? She can help the country and her party so much more if she is in the Senate, and quite frankly, I think restricting her to the VP position would have been career suicide for her.

If Hillary plays her cards right, she can make a strong run for the White House in either '12 or '16 depending on how Obama does (she wouldn't run against a successful Obama incumbency in '12). So don't act like she's dying. Its time to emotionally detach yourself from the situation if you are one of her supporters. If you believed in her during the campaign, if you've ever believed in her during her years in the Senate or her entire life, believe her when she assures you that "we must elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States."

It's time to put your pride aside. It's time to stop cutting off your nose to spite your face. It's time to prove to the world, and to the rest of America that the Democratic party isn't continually doomed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If you truly believe in what you claimed to when you supported Hillary, you realize what's at stake. There would be no greater tragedy than to suddenly abandon that and vote for a man that goes against everything your candidate worked for. It's time to listen to what Hillary and Bill so vigorously stated during the convention. Never give up. It's time to support Barack Obama.

The Bad News Bearers

After an arduous primary process, it appears that the Democratic vote is more split than previously thought. Despite Clinton's resignation from the campaign and her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, it appears that 43% of Democrats still say they want Clinton as the party's nominee. Even worse, a growing number of Clinton supporters have expressed that they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Barack Obama. It blows me away how anyone who proclaims themselves to be a true democrat can stay at home in such an unprecedented, significant election year. 

In addition to this, a CNN poll completed in early June showed that 60% of Clinton backers stated that they would vote for Obama in the national election. Recently, that number has dropped to 54%. What is shocking is how similar the two candidates were on the issues. Despite their constant bickering on who's healthcare plan covered more people (although both plans are eerily comparable), both candidates believed in the same essential liberal core ideas. That is what makes these recent polls that much more shocking. How can a Clinton supporter deny a fellow Democrat the White House based on his/her personal assumptions of Obama's character?

But most likely, Clinton's loss must be seen as a four step process:

1. First, there is denial. This was the most blatant of the four, with Senator Clinton proclaiming that she had won more of the popular vote than Senator Obama and her rally cry that the race would go all the way to the convention.

2. After the denial phase, Clinton supporters can expect to go through a grieving period. Seeing as recent numbers suggest Obama's poll numbers slipping amongst Clintonian Democrats, this is the phase that many are at at the present time. 

3. A short stage of depression and anger will follow. I believe that this may occur after Obama picks his running mate (who I believe will not have Clinton as their last name). If Obama were to pick Clinton, his message of change threatens to be muddled by her 16 years of hard work in Washington.

4. Finally, acceptance. After a long process of anger and grief, I believe that Clintonian Democrats will eventually succumb to Obama's wise words, hopeful message of change, and strong belief in liberal ideals. 

CNN political analyst Brian Schneider sums it up perfectly when he eloquently explains, "If he doesn't pick her [Clinton], a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance," Schneider says. "In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Senator Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk."

So please, if you are 18 or over, listen to Senator Clinton. This election is too important to stay home and not vote. And even if you are under 18 as I am, you can do your part by working for a candidate locally or advocating for the candidate of your choice. Either way, this election is too important to let slip away. Do your part!

The Florida-Michigan Resolution

Yesterday, the Democratic National Committee's Rules and Bylaws committee finally decided just what would happen with the delegations from Florida and Michigan, which as we all know had their delegates stripped by the party for holding their primaries too early in violation of a party rule. The decision? Their full delegation will be seated, but each delegate will only have half a vote as a penalty. Also, the results from Florida will be counted as they were in the primary, but the 44% of Michigan ballots that chose "uncommitted" were counted towards Obama, whose name was not on the ballot in that state. Clinton earned 55% there.

Finally, a resolution that compromises both sides in a very difficult situation. Now can we please stop making a big deal out of this? I'm talking to you, Hillary Clinton! This decision only gave her a net of 24 votes at the convention, and while it is a fair decision that recognizes the interests and arguments of both sides, it does not bring here anywhere near Obama, or being able to make her case that she is more electable with any sort of credibility. He remains nearly two hundred delegate equivalents ahead of her, and now needs to garner just 67 more to reach the requisite 2118, adjusted from the previous 2026 to account for the Florida/Michigan delegations. This changed almost nothing, except for laying Obama back some twenty delegates. And here's the thing--the primary season ends this Tuesday, and with three remaining contests, she has no chance to close the gap without going to the superdelegates, who are expected based on recent behavior to support the majority of pledged delegates and back Obama.

Now Clinton and her supporters are complaining about this decision, ostensibly because they want their votes counted, but in reality it is because this changed absolutely nothing. At the end of the day, she is (as a practical matter) no closer to catching up with Obama than she was at the beginning. But her supporters have turned seriously ugly because of this, even going so far as to say that they will vote for McCain if Hillary isn't nominated or booing Obama, the presumptive nominee.

The party will unite after the convention, Hillary? Really?

Because what we are seeing in your insistence to keep running is going to destroy the party. Florida and Michigan, your last great hopes, were resolved in a way that is fair to everyone, and you are no better off because of it. What happens after Tuesday, when the superdelegates begin to announce their allegiance to Obama, and he finds himself with a majority of the convention's delegates? Are you going to keep fighting until the convention itself, as you and your supporters have hinted? Because if you do, and even then fail to get the nomination, the Democratic Party that leaves Denver will be even more fractured than when it entered. It's over, Senator. The people have chosen, and shouldn't that be enough for you? Or do you really not care about the people, and are only so egotistical to believe that you deserve the nomination no matter what they say, willingly sabotaging your party's chances of winning in November by deepening the rift between your supporters and Obama's? Way to...umm...unite the party?

Faux News Strikes Again- Trotta Style

This past Sunday, Fox News contributor Liz Trotta made some pretty shocking remarks regarding Barack Obama. While responding to Hillary’s now infamous RFK remarks, she made the following comment,

[...] and now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama. Um, uh, Obama. Well both, if we could.

Trotta immediately followed this comment with laughter, as the host of the show mockingly asked her to “tell us how you really feel.” On Memorial Day, she made a half hearted apology, where she characterized it as a “lame attempt at humor,” and said she was “sorry to anyone I might have offended.”

Besides the fact that you know and I know she is not sorry for what she said, there is something bigger at risk here, much bigger. I have been noticing more and more that Fox News is beginning to bring people on air who regularly leave their position as objective news reporters to make their own personal commentaries on political issues.

The mainstream media is meant to provide information to the masses, pure, unbiased information that people can then take and interpret in their own highly personal ways. When big news sources like Fox continually put people like Liz Trotta on air, who seem to advocate the assassination of someone like Barack Obama, the media is failing as an institution. This is by no means the first time anyone from the media showed their own political colors, I’m just saying that as we near closer to November, this becomes a pretty big issue.

What I saw as I watched Liz Trotta on Sunday was not one lunatic political analyst making a monumental mistake, I saw a calculated attack on both Democratic Presidential candidates. I think that Fox may have tipped their cap at the violent hate filled tactics that we should expect as the election nears closer. They claim to be “fair and balanced,” but you and I both know that is a lie.

This is not an isolated event. You will see more of this, and of that I am sure. As it continues to happen, the other media sources will make a big deal for a few days, the talking head will be forced to make an apology, and then the media will find some other scandal to focus on, and the commentator will get off scot-free. Yet the message they implanted into millions of heads across the country will not fade so easily. The mainstream media still seems to find calling Obama “Osama” pretty damn funny, and until they stop, people across the nation will continue to believe he is Muslim, or even a threat to our country.
It needs to stop, and yet the only tool we have is our viewership. They control our information, and so we need them, and they know it. What can we do except turn off our television sets and deprive them of their demographic? Nothing, but in doing that, we become uninformed. It is a nasty little pickle we find ourselves in.

The only solace we can find is to only look towards sources we know that we can trust, such as The Washington Post, or The New York Times. If you are looking for political information, I suggest you look to one of those newspapers. If its on the TV, take it with a grain of salt.

That is my advice, do with it what you will. Or not, since I’m just some random guy writing on the internet.

Democratic Primary Season, day 144

Well, it's been two months since I last wrote about the Democrats, but one would think that the only thing that's changed is that both candidates now have higher delegate counts, although Obama is now in much better shape. With only three contests remaining, he has a majority of pledged delegates attending the convention, a lead in superdelegates, and increasing media coverage labelling him as the presumptive nominee. He is now only fifty-seven delgates shy of the requisite 2026 needed to be nominated. Yet Clinton, who trails Obama by nearly 200 delegates, remains in the race, not because she has any real chance, but because she refuses to leave.
Let's face it, the only reason that Obama isn't already labelled the presumptive nominee by everyone is because no one wants to have to break it to the Clintons--and that includes Bill as much as it does Hillary. But as they become increasingly desperate to show by any way they can that Senator Clinton deserves the nomination, one wonders if it's time for someone to tell them to get out now with class than to drag this thing to the convention.

The thing is, Clinton doesn't have a clear path to the nomination. The logic employed by Clinton supporters to show that she should get the nomination over Obama's head is increasingly tortured, with ironies and contradictions that make the summer gas tax seem like a good idea in comparison. She claims that she will not leave the race until "every voice was heard and every vote counted," yet she claims she is leading in the popular vote by counting Michigan (where Obama supporters were not even given the chance to vote for him) and Florida, and by discounting the people in caucus states, because somehow their opinions don't matter (or is it simply because Obama has dominated the caucuses?) She claims every voice needs to be heard, and so the votes in Florida and Michigan must be counted, even though that didn't become important to her until she realized that her nomination was about to be "stolen." She says she wants the votes of Americans to be counted, yet is desperately making her case to the superdelegates to buck the pledged delegates and choose her over Obama.
Recently she went so far as to claim that the Democrats need to change their nomination process, because the current one "fails to represent the will of the American voters." I quote,

“I think that’s an issue for debate in the future because I believe we should have primaries everywhere, and everybody, as many people as possible should be encouraged to vote...We ought to group them so that nobody is at the tail end, so everybody has a chance to participate. But that’s all for the future.”

You know, I didn't realize Hillary was the champion of nomination reform until the current system gave someone like Obama the chance to turn over the establishment candidate. I mean, give me a break. Lets face it, if the primaries were all held on the same day, Clinton, with national name recognition and a convincing lead in polls, probably could have won the nomination outright. However, the spaced out nature of the nominating process allowed Obama to gain name recognition as he won contests, particulary his surprising win in the Iowa caucuses. Now, suddenly, it's not democratic to give relative unknowns the chance to win popular support?
What this comes down to is that Clinton feels that she deserves the nomination, and when the people chose someone else it was because of some flaw in the nominating system. Will it ever occur to her that the Democratic Party perhaps found someone they liked more? It's as if she's personally offended by this whole ordeal, and her arguments are tantamount to claiming that the votes of the people don't matter at all. Give it up, Hillary.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/24/clinton-democratic-nomination-process-needs-to-change/

Alex Severin- "Mr. Gore, choose a side!"

Mr. Gore, Mr. Activist, Mr. Vice President, or whatever you would like to be called, your vote is an absolute necessity to the completion of this excruciatingly lengthy process. I for one, and I know I am not the only one, have grown extremely weary of the constant party bickering and underhanded attacks that are being leveled by both candidates (although Mrs. Clinton has been throwing more punches as of late).

The coveted endorsement is one that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are bitterly fighting for, and for good reason. Gore, who recently turned 60 years old, has been called the “party elder” and is viewed as a father figure for the Democrats. But Gore remains stubborn on the issue, justifying his indecision by saying,

“I’m simply watching and listening to the campaign. As a delegate to the convention I will cast my vote at the proper time. I haven’t ruled out making an endorsement prior to that time, but I haven’t been moved to do so.”

Others suggest, no matter how farfetched an idea, that Gore, not unlike John Edwards, may be waiting it out until a nominee is determined so he would be in contention for the Vice President spot again. To me this seems extremely unlikely, but intriguing in its own way. Gore has helped achieve magnificent things for this country (remember that he occupied the Vice Presidency during a time of grand economic prosperity in which the US government sat on a three trillion dollar surplus) and despite his increasing age, he could help increase environmental awareness in a country with the greatest ratio of hummers per square mile (sarcasm of course!).

No matter what Gore’s intentions are, the time is now! Mr. Gore, your vote is necessary in order for the presidential process to move forward. One thing is for certain, the longer the democrats battle without choosing a clear winner, the more time Republican hopeful John McCain has to run a virtually attack-free campaign. And no mater if you are a Clinton supporter or an Obama supporter, allowing McCain to run free of criticism helps no one!

Written By Alex Severin

Bonehead of The Week: All of us

Apparently the candidates and the media and the public in general have nothing better to focus on. By writing this story I'm part of the problem I suppose. The story in the news over the past few days has been Obama's comments regarding Pennsylvania voters, who he described as "angry" and "bitter."

"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness. I want to make a point here. [Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions. They’ve lost their health care."

He was making a point, that voters are frustrated with the way their lives have turned over the past few decades. Did he say it the right way? No, probably not. Describing people who you are trying to win over as angry and bitter probably isn't the best strategy, and he knows it. He knows he screwed up, but what the heck is with the amount of coverage on these comments? Candidates make about 5-6 stump speeches per day. Slips of the tongue have to be expected, these people are absolutely exhausted.

For example, when Hillary said that she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire. Well, if you count little girls reading you poems and handing you flowers as sniper fire, then I guess she would be right. She got caught in a lie, and she knows it, we all know it, move on. Candidates lie. I'm sorry to be the one to accept that, but they lie, and they always will. They're trying to prove that their the right person for the job, so they feel the need to bloat their own records a little bit. Is it right? Should it be happening? Absolutely not, but it is the product of the amount of attention we as Americans pay to elections in general. The candidates that simply tell it how it is are boring, they don't get any media attention, they don't get any votes. So how do we fix this? Can we ever really elect the "average joe" that we all claim to want in the White House? I'm not sure, give me your ideas in the comment section.

Anyways, we're all getting a little antsy before the Pennsylvania primaries. There has been a lull in the action, so you can expect more rediculous controversies like this on the news every night. FLASH: HILLARY CLINTON ORDERS PEPPERONI PIZZA IN PRIMARILY VEGITARIAN COMMUNITY. Ugh, give me a break. There will be more slips of the tongue as well. I'm sure if we analyzed every line of every speech these candidates give on a daily basis, we could find a reason to be angry or even bitter with all of them. Pun intended.

P.S. Sorry for the little break there in between posts, there has been a lot going on recently, and we're trying to get the new site up as soon as possible. Just know that we're working on it and the posts will be back on a daily basis starting today.

Huh?

Recently, a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton, Senator Evan Bayh (D-Indiana) suggested a novel, new method of guaging success in the primaries--tally up the electoral votes in states won!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y

Is there anyone reading this who can explain to me the tortured logic that would lead people to believe that winning electoral votes in a primary (where they make no difference at all) translates to winning electoral votes in the general election? Obviously the candidate who wins the primary goes on to win the general election. In fact, all twenty-four Democratic and Republican primary winners went on to take the white house, excepting only the twelve who lost. So clearly, primary performance is an indicator of general election performance.

Take a state like Texas, for example. Clinton won (narrowly) in the popular vote in that state's primary election on March 5. So, obviously, she will win Texas in the general election, right?

Frankly, no. Stephen Colbert could not have been more accurate when he said that the winner of the Texas Democratic primary would win Texas "unless there's a Republican candidate." I'm sorry, but no Democrat is going to take Texas in the general election--so why is being able to win it in a primary such a big thing?

Primary performance is no indicator whatsoever of how a candidate will perform in the general election. For one thing, it represents only the wishes of people who are registered members of the party itself (except for some states that hold open primaries, in which one need only be a registered voter). For another, it doesn't take into account a candidate's appeal to moderates or the other party--something that Hillary is sorely lacking.

The only reasonable explanation for why she wants to look at the primary victories as if they were the electoral college is that she's getting desperate to appear the frontrunner, when she trails Obama in just about every other category--including delegates, which is the only one that counts.

So, Senator Clinton, stop whining because the Democrats choose Barack Obama over you. I know it's hard for you to accept that, but that is just how politics works. Stop trying to show that you won in the electoral vote so far, because it only highlights that you've come up short where it really matters--the delegates.

The Fight Goes On, and On, and On, and On....

We've had a little break in the primary action as of late, and its given me a chance to take a step back and think about what's really going on in the Democratic Party right now.

Two very unique candidates are battling it out for the right to run for President, not the right to BE president, but just to have the chance to run. They are spending millions upon millions of dollars, making 4-5 speeches per day, traveling all across the country, giving countless interviews, and having their entire lives recorded by the national media. Why are they doing all this? Why would they subject themselves to such sucky conditions? Why won't one of them just give up already?

We haven't seen a primary election cycle like this in decades. These two really couldn't be closer right now, whether it be in the public opinion (Hillary now holds a small lead in national polls) or delegate count (which Barack currently controls). They both think that they have the people on their side, like they are what is right for this country. What they don't realize is that they are slowly destroying their chances at a victory in November, when it really counts.

As the democrats have been fighting it out for months and months in the primaries, in the media, John McCain has been rallying the troops, securing the base. The democrats are attacking each other and convincing America that the other isn't right for the job, while John McCain is convincing everyone that he is right for the job. All I've seen lately covering the race is negative press regarding each of the democrats, press that the American people are reading and keeping in the back of their mind, information they will remember in November.

The Republicans have the right idea. They came together and selected a candidate early, and now all he has to do is secure all of those Republican votes, with no one within his own party trying to prove he's an idiot, or incompetant. Even worse for the democrats, no one in the Democratic party is focusing on McCain either. They are devoting so much time to the primary election that they have lost sight of their ultimate goal, to put a democrat in office. And this isn't necessarily a fault of Democratic America, they just can't make up their damn minds.

It is time to make a decision. This needs to come to an end. If the American people can not choose between the two, then Democratic leadership must. It is time to act, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Al Gore. It is time to pick which horse you're going to ride into the fall and kick the other one out. Only the Democratic Party leadership can (through private conversation) nudge one of these candidate out of the race, and they NEED to do it, if the Party has any chance of winning in November. If it doesn't happen directly after the Pennsylvania primaries in April, McCain will continue to gather support, and the democrats will continue to attack each other.

There's a saying I heard one time that "The Democratic party has a strange way of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory." Well, If the democrats can't make up their minds soon, this may be the case once again in 2008.

Florida, Michigan, and Hillary Clinton

You know, I am just sickened by the dispute in the Democratic party over the Florida and Michigan primaries. Remember back when the DNC decided to strip them of their delegates for scheduling their primaries too early, and no one really cared? Seriously, I don't remember anyone complaining that the people in those states had lost their voice in the democratic process. But now, all of a sudden, people have realized that those delegates could have made the difference at the convention, and are all of a sudden complaining about the nullification of their results.

The facts are thus: in August of 2006, the Democratic National committee decided that Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada would be allowed to hold primaries/caucuses before February 5, to slow down the packing of the early primary season. In spring of 2007, the Florida General Assembly voted to hold the primary on January 29, a week before the date set by the party. Michigan also set its primary for mid-January, due to the opinion that the DNC rule gave the four states unjust importance in the process. In August 2007, the DNC decided to strip Florida of its delegates within 30 days. It did not do so, and so the delegates were stripped. Michigan managed to keep their delegates all the way until December 1, when the DNC officially stripped its delegation as well. Following these decisions, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and other candidates removed or tried to remove their names from the Michigan ballot, and tried to get off of the Florida ballot as well, in a show of respect for the rules of the party. Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd both decided to remain, to demonstrate respect for the people of the states. All candidates agreed that they would not campaign in either state--including Senator Clinton.

Not surprisingly, most of the complaining about this whole mess is coming from the Clinton camp, which has found itself against a wall that it never could have foreseen last fall. Now, with the nomination getting further and further away from her, and ever closer to Senator Obama, she is getting desperate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/us/politics/20memo.html?_r=1&th=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=th&adxnnlx=1206036634-4naVLUR96ihfinrGOTeHHg

Maybe I just read all the wrong articles in the, oh, seven months between the DNC's decision to strip Florida's delegates (only 4 months in Michigan), but I don't remember Senator Clinton complaining that they had lost their vote in those states until she realized that she probably will not get the nomination without them. (Her earliest opposition to this came on January 25, when the early primaries did not go as she had planned.) Now, however, her campaign has taken the position that "Michigan is populated by people, not numbers, and those people need to have their voices heard in this process,"* and she actually went to the state recently to campaign to have the results from the January 15 primary count...even though her principal competitor, Barack Obama, wasn't even on the ballot.

Now, in Florida I can almost understand the desire to count the delegates according to the results of the January 29 primary. All candidates had agreed not to campaign in the state, and therefore no candidate had an unfair advantage, right? But what about all the eligible voters who decided they would not vote in this primary because it didn't count? Their voices would not have been heard anyway, so the only way to have a truly fair election in Florida would be to have a primary do-over (which would also be a bad idea--more on this later.)

But try as I might, I cannot find any justification for Clinton's argument that the Michigan primaries were fair, and should be counted due to the January 15 results, other than the fact that she knows that Obama would get no delegate because he was not on the ballot. How can you possibly claim it was a fair primary if the current front runner wasn't even an option, especially while saying that everyone has a right to their vote? What about all the ones who would have voted for Obama had he not decided to remove himself from the ballot, in honor of the Party's rules? Again, if you want a truly fair election, you would move for another primary in both those states.

Okay, so counting the votes as they happened on the original dates is out of the question. So why not have a primary do-over? Well, it's not that simple. First of all, another primary costs a lot of money, that frankly has better uses elsewhere. Second, and more importantly, it sends a message to all the states that if you break the rules of the party, it won't really matter. This will end up being a huge problem, as it will clear a way for future rules violations in the future, because if your votes will count anyway, why not risk it to make your own state a little more important? This year, with the delegate count so close, and all the media attention on Michigan and Florida, they would appear just as important as any of the first four states anyway. Not a great way to punish rule breakers--in fact, it ends up punishing the states that actually honored the party's decision. The way I see it is this: the DNC set a clear rule. Florida and Michigan chose to violate that rule, knowing that it would result in the stripping of their delegation. You're upset now that your votes don't count? That's called "tough love."

The third option is to divide the delegates from both states evenly between Obama and Clinton. This is by far the fairest option to the other 48 states, plus all the US territories, that obeyed the party rules and held their primaries on or after February 5 (unless they were Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, or South Carolina). The effect on the delegate count is essentially zero--since each candidate has the same amount tacked onto their delegation, there is no net change in the difference between pledged delegates. This would, however, bring the lead candidate nearly two hundred votes closer to the 2,025 needed for the nomination, which would help that lead candidate to win over the support he needs.

Because, lets face it, this primary battle has gone on too long. We have as the current front runner, Senator Barack Obama, who leads in pledged delegates, states won, and the popular vote. Senator Clinton trails, but not by enough. However, her time is running out, and she will have to win big in the few remaining states (especially Pennsylvania). Unfortunately for her, it is looking less and less likely that she will win by enough to make the kind of gains in this area that will allow her to to say she's caught up to him (unless Florida and Michigan are counted as they stand...), and will thus be forced to rely on the superdelegate vote that will likely go with the candidate with more delegates--Obama.

I don't have a problem with Hillary herself. Whatever people say about her, I believe she is genuinely committed to the causes she fights for, particularly health care. However, she is behind, by a significant margin, in the delegate count, and it is very unlikely for her to catch up. So why is she staying in? She's close enough to Obama that the party leaders can't simply ask her to exit the race, with a fair amount of delegates not yet apportioned, and she is not going to drop out on her own because that's not how she is. She is becoming desperate for the nomination, and that is causing her to launch a progressively more negative campaign against Senator Obama. If she fails to get the nomination, her negative campaigning will come right back at Obama during his race with (presumptively) Senator John McCain. McCain himself is currently not clawing at others within his own party, who presumably share many of the same ideals, he is preparing for the general election. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidates are still attacking each other, and unless one drops, they will continue to do so right until the convention in August, where the superdelegates will likely be the swing votes.

I doubt that Hillary will be able to make up the gap in pledged delegates in the few remaining contests (although this is a presumption on my part). So, she will be going into the convention, behind in pledged delegates, but relying on the top Democratic Party figures to give her the nomination. What if they do? What if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, even if she didn't win the vote of the Democrats of America? She will be going into general election season as a tainted nominee, a nominee chosen by party insiders as opposed to the people. She will be going against John McCain, a strong candidate with great appeal to moderate voters. If this scenario occurs, and she loses the general election, the Democrats will have blown this golden opportunity, amidtst painfully low public opinion of George Bush, a tired war in the Middle East, and a deepening *recession,* to take the presidency and accomplish their agenda. This disastrous party infighting, the controversy over lost votes, and potentially a candidate who did not truly win will end up destroying the Democratic party. As one who tends to lean liberal, I, as well as many others, will be upset if the Democrats lose in November because of this fight. This is a glorious opportunity, but instead of rallying behind a candidate, the party is in the midst of petty squabling, between two candidates who have policies that are 95% the same. A lot of people will lose faith in the party, if it cannot rally now when so many Americans want change. This needs to stop now.

So, Senator Clinton, stop running against Barack Obama and start running for the Democratic Nomination. Stop viciously attacking the man who may well become the nominee, partly since it will hurt him in the general election, but partly since it will hurt you too. Stop trying to find a way around Democratic Party rules for Florida and Michigan, and endorse the wishes of the party you represent.

Because, as we all know, in the general election, there is no do-over.


*http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Primary-Scramble.html?scp=1&sq=promoted+the+idea+in+a+statement%2C+saying%2C+%22The+best+outcome+is&st=nyt

An Open Letter to Geraldine Ferraro

Hey, Geraldine Ferraro, I have a question for you. You've said in the press that this Presidential campaign is "very emotional" for you. You support Hillary Clinton, which is completely understandable. Its been a while since you were the first ever woman candidate for Vice President when you ran with Walter Mondale in 1984, but you still like to stay involved. Recently you've said that you feel Hillary has been a victim of a very "sexist media." So here's my question. How will you respond to this "sexist media?"

Racism, you say?

Great choice. Here's what you said last week.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position, and if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
-Geraldine Ferraro

You're right, Geraldine. Barack has obviously based his entire campaign on courting the black vote. People only actually care about him because he's black. It's not like he has viable ideas, most of which are almost exactly the same as your girl, Hillary's. I actually applaud you, Geraldine. You're smarter than almost everyone in the United States. What an accomplishment! While all of us ignorant fools are out being duped by a black candidate, or just being excited about the future of this nation (regardless the next President) you're able to stay above the fray. Admirable.

Even better, Hillary doesn't feel that what you said was so bad after all.

Both of us have had supporters and staff members who've gone over the line and we have to reign them in and try to keep this on the issues. There are big differences between us on the issues -- let's stay focused on that.
-Hillary Clinton

Looks like you're going to be able to stay on the campaign trail. Even though an Obama advisor was recently forced out (and rightly so) for calling Hillary a "monster" apparently racial slurs such as yours aren't grounds for dismissal. Who cares if you offend the African Americans of this nation, right? They're opinions probably don't mean much to you anyways.

Obama wins Wyoming

Major news outlets are reporting that Barack Obama will win the Wyoming caucus today.

The delegate split is as follows:
Obama: 7
Clinton: 5

This marks the first primary since Hillary Clinton's big night on March 4th, in which she won both Ohio and Texas.

Barack Obama has now won 29 of 43 states that have been decided thus far. He has been dominant in caucuses, however, winning a commanding 12 out of the 13 caucuses that have been decided. Attention now shifts to the Mississippi primaries on March 11th.