Paul,
Here's the scenario that I'm worried about. I sent it to Josh Marshall, and he was kind enough to post it at TPM. It pretty much aligns with everything you are saying.
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's suppose that Hillary has a very good day in Pennsylvania, perhaps a 15-20 point win. If that happens, there is no way the superdelegates are going to move to lock it down for Obama. It's likely that she will also do fairly well in Indiana, West Virginia, and Kentucky, chipping away at Obama's lead. She probably won't overcome his current margin, but she will be close enough to be able to make the case to the superdelegates that she has the momentum, and that the Pastor Wright mess renders Obama unelectable.
Thus, we go into the convention with a bitterly divided Party, with tensions running high, and both of our potential nominees battered and less able to take on McCain in November. The superdelegates will be in the very uncomfortable position of having to risk alienating the newly-inpspired and huge African-American and youth components of the Party if they hand the prize to Hillary Clinton. If they give the nod to Obama, the Clinton faction is going to raise all kinds of hell and may not be supportive of Obama in the general election.
IMHO, we are headed toward a very unhappy ending, and if I were a superdelegate I'd be inclined to slam-dunk it now for Obama. The Clinton camp would have no cause to complain; they started this campaign with 96 committed SD's who didn't even bother to take a look at the other contestants-- they were in Hillary's pocket from the start. It is also worth noting that the Clinton team was saying that they expected to wrap this whole thing up by Super Tuesday, so they are in no position to claim that the Obama SD's acted in haste. At the moment, Obama leads by every conceivable metric-- pledged delegates, popular vote, states won, caucuses won, and yes- primaries won. The uncommitted SD's who have been patient enough to witness 19 debates and 40 primaries could easily justify their decision to line up behind a nominee so we can begin to consolidate support for our general election candidate.
The fact that those superdelegates haven't pulled the trigger yet make me inclined to believe that they are going to let the process run its course, and I'm betting that when we reach July we are all going to wish that they had summoned up the wisdom and the courage to end it back in mid-March when we had a clear front-runner.
SuperDuper Delegates: How About Some Leadership?
The Bush Administration has been so disastrous, and Republican Congressional rule so complicit and corrupt, that it seems to follow, "as the night the day", that the Democrats must take over just to staunch the bleeding.
But, what have the Democrats done to show they would do better? Where is the leadership? Rather than cut funds for the Iraq War, and put the onus on the commander-in-chief to insure the safety of the troops with funding withdrawn, they capitulated. There are more troops in Iraq today, spending more US tax dollars, than there were when the Democrats won back Congress in November 2006. More US servicemen and women lost their lives in 2007 than in any prior year. Not exactly a leadership record to run on. Many excuses, but no results.
Because of the unusual situation presented by the Democratic nomination, Democratic Party leaders have a clear opportunity to show they can lead. Will they take it? Are they capable? That's what the next few weeks will determine.
As I understand it, the Clintons plan to do very well in the remaining primaries, and then develop an argument for their nomination. Argument? My middle school civics taught me that elections make choices, not arguments.
But, here's an argument: Bill Clinton was in 3rd place, behind both George HW Bush and Ross Perot, going into the 1992 convention. So, what is the "argument" for superdelegates to divine who will win the November election from August polls?
There are 3 potential outcomes to the Presidential nomination race. Following a protracted, scorched-earth battle, either Hillary or Obama wins the nomination. Each of those two outcomes provides McCain a likely victory.
Equally importantly, it will have shown--again--that Democrats have a genetic disability to lead.
The third potential outcome is that Obama wins the nomination within a few weeks. Yes, that means that Hillary drops out. No further scorched earth. No financial exhaustion of donors. Time to build a consensus. Time to take on John McCain.
A dream? Certainly, if the assumption were that Hillary would awaken one morning, realize her path to the nomination is a pyrrhic victory at best, and decide to do something not only for her party, but for progressive policies. Hillary Clinton is no Lou Gehrig---taking himself out of the lineup "for the good of the team".
Nor should she should be blamed. Our political system is not organized to enable such a selfless act. Consider all the people who have hitched their wagons to a Hillary victory, not to mention people like Mark Penn who are vacuuming in millions of dollars from her continued campaigning---all will be assuring her that the path to her nomination is real, and that they will deal with the implications for the general election when they get there.
There is, however, an alternative. It is called leadership.
At one point during another Republican scandal, Watergate, Barry Goldwater reportedly went to the White House and told Nixon, "it's over". Soon thereafter, Nixon's remaining support in Congress eroded, and the wheels were set in motion for Nixon's resignation.
Superdelegates are a diffuse group of people, scattered around the country, who do not act in unison nor do a few here-or-there carry much weight.
There is, however, a subset of superdelegates ("SuperDuper Delegates") that do have such clout. Like Barry Goldwater for the Republicans, there are major Democratic leaders, Hillary supporters, who could go to Senator Clinton and say, "it's over".
I do not underestimate how uncomfortable such a meeting would be. These people are colleagues, and future colleagues, of Senator Clinton. Many, like Bill Richardson, worked with the Clintons in the 1990s. Moreover, for them to say "it's over" to Hillary is to change their own position, and thus to appear as if they are fair-weather friends.
All true, if the key question for the SuperDuper delegates ought to be their personal loyalty to Hillary. It is not. Hillary had her run, she was inevitable, but, absent a scorched earth campaign that would make it unlikely for any Democrat to win, she has lost it.
The SuperDuper delegates should run through the scenarios in their own minds of a Democratic party united now, getting its act together for the fall election, and beginning a decade or two rule for progressive politics. We will be able to run against George Bush for two generations---and the Republicans know it!
But, that will not happen if they sit idly by, knowing the hard reality, and do nothing. Right now, they want others to do something.
The question for the SuperDuper delegates is leadership. It is tough, but they were not elected to make easy decisions, or to allow events to play themselves out so that they would not have to make the decisions. If that is all they do, why do we need them? Why would we follow them?
It is their job, as leaders, to recognize likely outcomes, weigh chances vs. alternatives, and to take action before mutually destructive behavior occurs. Show they can make some uncomfortable, but necessary, decisions.
Or do Democratic Party leaders become forever that 19th century European leader who said, "I can't talk to you now, there go my followers"?
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And the superdelegates are too diffuse a group---geographically and otherwise---to take concerted action. Only the SuperDUPER delegates---the major elected federal officials supporting Hillary---can act in the interests of the country and party.
That is what leadership is supposed to be about.
The Super Delegates overturning the will of the Democratic voters is the only chance Sen Clinton has of securing the nomination. The Super Delegates now moving towards Obama means Hillary is in big trouble. It's almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates now. The question now is how much damage is Sen Clinton willing to do to Obama in the Nov. general election?
Saying Republican nominee John McCain and herself pass the Commander in Chief test, but Obama doesn't? Maybe Hillary should consider asking Sen McSame if he would be interested in being her running mate. Their agendas seem to have things in common these days. If you had any doubt as to what drives Team Clinton, you shouldn't any more. Hillary is proving that what's most important to her is not a Democrat winning back the White House in 08, but rather her life long dream of becoming the first woman President of the U.S. It's time for Hillary to take one for the team, and get out of a race she can longer win. You had a twenty plus point lead in the polls for so many months Hillary. Your campaign staff blew it with no post Feb. 5th strategy allowing Obama to win eleven straight states.
I know there will be Hillary supporters out there who don't like what I have to say here. But not liking what I'm saying doesn't make what I'm saying any less true. Win at any cost! That's the creed of a sinking team Clinton these days. Unfortunately any cost just might mean four more years of continued Bush failed policy both at home and abroad under a 72 year old Pres John McBu$h, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Not understanding the over 1300 year feud between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq was at the core of the Bush administration failure in Iraq. You wont solve a problem until you understand what the problem is.
As we enter year six of this endless disaster in Iraq, the will of the American people continues to be ignored.
Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57
Two disastrous Bush terms have taken their toll on the Republican party. The 08 Republican candidate bears the brunt of the radioactive party label of today. Now consider how Sen McCain supports the Iraq war, the tax cuts for the wealthiest, and many other Bush policies..... This election will be a blowout! Or rather, it should be. The Clinton/Obama feud is doing damage to the Dem party now. A one time huge Dem lead for 08 has slowly evaporated.
The Dems were practically handed the 08 Pres election on a silver platter in advance. This helps explain their lack of courage and play it safe stand rather than stand up to Bush. "Just don't do anything perceived as brazen, and we'll win back the White House" This was also their Nov 07 mid term election strategy as well as in 08. This Clinton/Obama feud combined with the unwillingness of the new Dem majority Congress to take a tough stand against Bush over the past year could make this election much closer than it had to be. If this proves to be the case and the Dem candidate doesn't win in Nov, then the Dem party brought it upon themselves. Their own worst enemy.
Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57
The Super Delegates overturning the will of the Democratic voters is the only chance Sen Clinton has of securing the nomination. The Super Delegates now moving towards Obama means Hillary is in big trouble. It's almost mathematically impossible for Clinton to catch Obama in pledged delegates now. The question now is how much damage is Sen Clinton willing to do to Obama in the Nov. general election?
Saying Republican nominee John McCain and herself pass the Commander in Chief test, but Obama doesn't? Maybe Hillary should consider asking Sen McSame if he would be interested in being her running mate. Their agendas seem to have things in common these days. If you had any doubt as to what drives Team Clinton, you shouldn't any more. Hillary is proving that what's most important to her is not a Democrat winning back the White House in 08, but rather her life long dream of becoming the first woman President of the U.S. It's time for Hillary to take one for the team, and get out of a race she can longer win. You had a twenty plus point lead in the polls for so many months Hillary. Your campaign staff blew it with no post Feb. 5th strategy allowing Obama to win eleven straight states.
I know there will be Hillary supporters out there who don't like what I have to say here. But not liking what I'm saying doesn't make what I'm saying any less true. Win at any cost! That's the creed of a sinking team Clinton these days. Unfortunately any cost just might mean four more years of continued Bush failed policy both at home and abroad under a 72 year old Pres John McBu$h, who doesn't seem to understand the difference between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq. Not understanding the over 1300 year feud between the Sunni and Shia in Iraq was at the core of the Bush administration failure in Iraq. You wont solve a problem until you understand what the problem is. As we enter year six of this endless disaster in Iraq, the will of the American people continues to be ignored.
Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57
Ya'll seem to be getting pretty worried about the contests going forward.
So Hillary should drop out right before she wins every contest except maybe Oregon? (Yes, I think you are going to be surprised in NC)
PA Landslide and no more 10K voter turnout caucus victories in RED states for OB. (In what parallel universe can OB win nationally without OH, FL and PA.)
Why don't you just stop with the "quit for the party" whining. Admit to yourself that at least 50% of the party is supporting the other candidate and show some respect.
Far more important than who (Hillary or Obama) wins the nomination is that the nominee is in good shape, with a united party, and without a long list of attacks by the opponent (Hillary on Obama or Obama on Hillary) that will be fodder for the Republicans, and without financial exhaustion of the Democratic Party donors.
If this were Hillary ahead of Obama by the same amount, I would say the same thing. But, we all know that the Establishment would have long ago drummed Obama out of the race.
I think we lose sight of the big prize--the White House and Congress probably for a generation or two--and that what happens to either of these individuals is not nearly as important. I was not even an Obama supporter (I was for Richardson), so this is not romanticism over Obama, it is the practical understanding of what remains.
I don't know any more than anyone else does who is best to beat McCain in November. What I DO know is that if we tear one another apart for another few months, neither will be in as good a position to beat McCain.
Hey, as they say in sports, before we bestow the laurels let's play the game. With only a couple of minutes left, the NY Giants, severe underdogs in the polls, were still behind; but, they didn't quit and look what happened. So, if this thing goes down to the wire in Denver, it might be for the best. (Consider the wall to wall coverage on the cable networks. Even the most uninvolved, unlike the partisans represented here, will become aware that something important is going on.)
I certainly hope all this talk of throwing in the towel before the final round is over isn't motivated by fears for the maturity and good sense of the divided electorate. Sure, there'll be disapointment but after the initial let-down, and with the leadership of the losing candidate, I, for one, am confidant the party will unify for the first of three or four consecutive presidential victories run against memories of the worst and most harmful administration in the country's history.
Moncar, keep dreaming. As an independent, I see mostly miney moused losers in the Democratic party.
More and more people are dumping both parties, because, in all honesty, they are a SHAM.
Mr. Abrams, you are spot on.
If Obama's response to the inflammatory and distortive Wright videos isn't leadership, then I've never seen such in my lifetime.
Klondiker, slc20, RButler, StephenJK, KerkorianKnot - read this twice and then bang your head against the wall or on the concrete and read it again.
Obama is ahead in delegates, most states won, and POPULAR VOTES. Now that there will be no revotes in Florida and Michigan it is not mathematically possible for Hillary to even win the popular vote. Did you get that. IT IS NOT MATHEMATICALLY POSSIBLE FOR HILLARY TO EVEN WIN THE POPULAR VOTE! Just like Politico.com said the only reason Hillary is still in the race is because the MSM keeps pushing the myth it is still possible for her to steal the nomination. Hillary should have been out of the race after losing 11 CONTEST IN A ROW! Had Hillary shown any honor and decency after that sound thumping she may have had a chance at VP. But after showing herself to be slimy, calculating, and having surpassed treacery and moving right up to evil she has now blown her shot at VP.
If Obama had lost 5 or 6 contest in row the MSM would have dogged him. The cover of TIME would read: "Why is Obama out to destroy the Democrats?"
The MSM won't ask so I will?
"WHY IS HILLARY CLINTON OUT TO DESTROY THE DEMOCRATS?"
For love of America some one show some leadership! STOP THE MADNESS!
So the superdelegates would be leaders if they did exactly what you want?
Please allow a simple question from a simple senior citizen. Why do American citizens continue to pretend that his or her vote and/or opinion in any way determine who is "elected" or even preferred by the people of this country?
Year after year, election after election, millions of us blindly and unquestioningly engage in the charade that our politicians call an "election". The reality is the votes of the people DO NOT count or in any way determine who is "elected".
People, put the kool-aid down and look around you and truly listen for even minute! The true RULERS of the United States, who insist we refer to them as "elected politicians" have no intention of ALLOWING THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY to "vote" and possible choose someone who THEY have determined can not be trusted to rule in a manner that continues their reign and build their personal fortunes!
This year we have the "super delegates" on the democratic side. They will actually determine who is "elected". You can be sure there will always be another form of electoral gimmick as necessary in the future years. And, of course, every four years we have that beloved "Electoral College" if necessary to make the proper decision for the country. People, stop pretending. You are nothing more than part of the charade that we call our "election".
There is, however, an alternative. It is called leadership.
somebody, somewhere, pay attention to the michigan and florida delegations. we democrats cannot afford to be dissed by you disenfranchising us. and that you includes obama.
I think dissing Florida & Michigan is going to be our downfall. I believe you will see many people from these two states, staying home or voting for McCain. The democratic congress has also turned off many voters. They have achieved nothing and now they are on another 2 week vacation.
in the michigan and florida primaries, almost 2.5 million democrats voted. those votes don't count now.
in case nobody gets it, obama's refusal to approve a do-over in michigan combined with the selective punishment of michigan and florida by not seating our delegates at the democratic national convention means that the fourth and eighth most populous states' democrats are being DISENFRANCHISED.
I thought the popular vote was expressed in the currency of delegates.
I understand the popular vote concept (such as in General Election versus Electoral College) but for the life of me I fail to see how mixing caucus votes for say Colorado with primary votes from Rhode Island is fair to Colorado or for that matter relevant at all.
I must have fallen asleep and missed it. Did Obama win enough votes to win the nomination outright?
Isn't there a number of primaries still to be decided?
And, don't the SuperDelegates have a responsibility to analyze the probability of success of the candidates for actually winning the election? If a candidates delegate votes are from a state in which the Republicans are extremely likely to win, does that candidate's vote have the same weight as a candidate from, say, California, where the electoral college weight is high and the likelihood of Democratic success is high? Or, Pennsylvania. Or, New York? Or, Michigan?
It is not clear to me that the goal of the Democratic party is to follow a straight majority number game - I think that, perhaps, the Democratic Party should select a candidate that is likely to win the actual electoral college election.
Or, has Mr. Abrams decided that for us?
To answer your question, "no". I have no idea who is most likely to win the electoral college. Neither does anyone else. As I point out in the article, Bill Clinton trailed both HW Bush and H Ross Perot going into the Democratic Convention. And, he won in November. No one was suggesting that the party hand the nomination to Mario Cuomo because he polled better.
So, I don't think there is a means to know or even guess at your answer. Primary elections are about making choices, not developing arguments.
What has been "decided" is that, under our rules, Hillary cannot surpass Obama in the elected delegate totals, he is too far ahead, and she would have to win all of them by 64% to do so. While the possibility of her winning is not zero, it is close enough to zero to make one wonder whether the money and carnage are worth it.
No doubt the Democratic nomination process is a mess, but so what? It's a very tight race, and most Democrats are divided between the two candidates. it's obvious there isn't a great deal of difference between their respective political positions, so people have to decide on the basis of other issues and perceptions, such as electability or simply personal preference. The argument that Hillary should drop out for party unity has no more merit than the argument that Obama should drop out because so-called swing democrats or independent republicans won't vote for him in a general election.
The real problem is the existence of a convoluted nomination process with rules that don't make logical sense, and lead to contradictory results. Neither candidate can make a straight forward argument for why they should be the nominee without running into some contradictions. Obama lost the popular vote in Texas, but actually gained more delegates due to a simultaneous cacus procedure. Hillary is behind in the popular vote and delegate count, but likely would have won in florida and michigan. Why do we give so much weight to the Iowa cacuses? Out of tradition? Frankly, that's a tradition we can do without. So let them duke it out. Democrats and progressives may not be as prone to falling in line as are Republicans, but when this nomination does get sorted out, we won't be stupid enough to forget the misery of the last eight years.
The answer to the superdelegate question is easy, simple, and fair. Simply add half of the superdelegate vote to each candidate's total. This neutralizes them and lets the votes of the other delegates (the people) decide the race. It also ends the race sooner, probably far ahead of the convention, and lets the winner (the people's winner) get on with fighting McCain. If the Democrats don't adopt this plan they are wasting time, effort, money, and the good will of American voters. If you like this plan please post it anywhere you can think of and try to convince the party to get out of this mess of its own making. And of course dump the superdelegates first thing when they hit Denver.
Hillary's position is that the voters should decide, unless they decide to nominate Obama, and in that case the superdelegates should decide to nominate her.
Hillary's postion on Michigan and Florida is that they shouldn't count, unless she needs them to win the nomination and then they should count.
Hillary's position on Obama is that he is not qualified to be President, unless he wants to be her Vice President, then of course he is qualified to be President..
The Clintons only guiding compass is what is right for them, nothing else shall stand in the way.
Two reasons this should end now:
1) Hillary Clinton cannot win among elected delegates, or the popular vote. She just can't. Should something nuclear happen to make Obama unelectable, the party can reconvene and choose whoever they want regardless of whether she's running or not - she doesn't have to stay in to be a backup.
Given that her loss is inevitable, why should it make a difference whether the race goes on or not? Bringing us to reason number...
2) Her supporters are scouring the internet and forwarding anything negative about Obama to Fox news and their minions. It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen from people who call themselves democrats, and she's enabling it.
"2) Her supporters are scouring the internet and forwarding anything negative about Obama to Fox news and their minions. It's the most disgusting thing I've ever seen from people who call themselves democrats, and she's enabling it."
Excellent point, and I hope any superdelegates reading realize that this will only set up all Democrats to lose the White House in November.
The Democratic leadership needs to start stepping up here before we lose it all.
I am as opposed to a Hillary Clinton nomination as many other Democrats are; however, I don't think that the Super Delegates need to be in the business of telling anyone to get out of the race. What they need to do instead is get together and pledge to support the candidate that emerges from the caucus/primary process as the winner. Period. Then let Hillary Clinton draw her own conclusions about whether she should stay in the race or not.
As for those of you who argue that there's not that much difference between the number of delegates (or popular votes for that matter) won by Clinton and those won by Obama -- I have just one question. Where did you stand in 2000 when the Supreme Court was busy handing a much closer election to George Bush? Did you make the argument then that political elites had the right to decide since Gore had only beat Bush by a very small percentage of the popular vote overall and the best case Democratic scenario in Florida would be a Gore win by a fraction of a percentage point? Or were you screaming bloody murder about stolen elections? Just wondering.
Earlier this week, I blogged as to whether or not it was time for Hillary Clinton to close up shop on her campaign, whether before or after the Pennsylvania primary (assuming she doesn"t have a earth-shaking victory, if any, there).
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/03/time-for-clinton-to-close-up-shop.html
Now, as I note, the question is what happens to her after 2008?
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/03/quo-vadis-hillary-after-2008.html
Speculation 1. If Obama wins in 2008, that puts her next chance of a presidential run in 2016. And, as women like Geraldine Ferraro, or plenty an older Hollywood actress, would surely, and rightly, tell us, ageism has a sexism bias to it.
In other words, a 68-year-old Hillary Clinton ain"t going to get the nomination, and not just because she will even more seem to be a link to the past and not an "agent of change" in 2016.
Speculation 2. If Obama loses, a lot of intra-Democratic navel-gazing will probably point the finger at her, and quickly. Her 2012 nomination chances might not be "none," but they would be "slim" indeed.
And, would she stay in the Senate, under either speculation? Her seat comes up for re-election in 2012, which would bollix things up more if Obama loses in the general this year.
Or, what if Obama wins? Does Clinton get a primary challenger, backed by the Obama White House, in her 2012 Senate race?
"But, what have the Democrats done to show they would do better?"
Shall we start with ethics reform? Something the Republicans steadfastly ignored?
There's a long list on top of that. But it's a damned good start.
Apparently no elected official today no matter what party they are from can lead. If the average schmo could lead why havent we heard anything from any of the hundreds of unknown officials that were elected to do something other than the bidding of their so caled leadership. Boehner, Lott, Pelosi, Reid and Bush are all complicit in the systematic destruction of America's reputation, economy and Constitution.
I for one am sick of arguing with Bush lovers and/or Hillary lovers the facts more than prove America is not in a better place today and that has everything to do with Bush as Commander in Chief and Clinton as one of far to many Senators who have no spine.
Clinton telling any of us that she and McCain alone have passed some type of test for president is ridiculous and typical of Clinton bullshit. If she is ready to be president why the hell did she vote for war without reading the 90 page report telling her the real facts. Is it so hard for a Clinton fan to realize that Hillary's vote for the war and subsequent support of every damn bill regarding the war up to this very second PROVES that she is in fact not ready to be president and that her record of leadership is an embarressing failure.
Obama is not perfect but Obama is not a McCain, Bush or Clinton either and that alone is enough for all of us to do the right thing and move this country past the bush/clinton years and get this country back on track for our children's future. Hasn't this country suffered enough under the selfish leadership of the last twenty odd years. Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have weakened this country and divided us over issues that are not in our interest. That is their personal record of leadership and its mighty thin.
"There are 3 potential outcomes to the Presidential nomination race. Following a protracted, scorched-earth battle, either Hillary or Obama wins the nomination. Each of those two outcomes provides McCain a likely victory."
Excuse me? McCain winning in the GE is as likely as the earth's rotation suddenly stopping. This presidential election is ALL ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS. McCain, at least as I see it, is, at best, a cardboard cut-out in the grand scheme of things.
That is not to take anything away from him. He was tortured in favor of revealing sensitive tactical information to a known enemy of the US. That is, if he ever had such information. Which would REALLY suck if he did not.
That said, Clinton has millions of supporters and many more yet to vote. When did elections this tight have a rule that says "thou shalt drop out of the race if it be viewed as "pyhrric" or having the properties of a "scorched earth". Furthermore, a "slaughter" rule shall be observed if the other candidate and his/her supporters feel their is a need to observe a "slaughter" rule.
I hope Hillary wins. She would be a great leader. She will address, forcefully, women's issues. FINALLY, someone who will step up and take care of the grave injustices against women EVERYWHERE!
Stephen, I am an independent and my money is on McInsane. He will never get my vote, but the Democratic party missed the opportunity to GOVERN over the past 2 years. Sorry.
I hope if she does get the nomination and the presidency she handles it better than she did the first time around when she tried to get major legislation passed (Health Care). So far the only thing I've seen her do is drive a big wedge in the democratic party. I'm not to keen on voting for a candidate that essentially calls me delusional for supporting her opponent (her mocking Obama speech where she made a speech and everything was better). I'd say I'd expect better from her but I would just be fooling myself.
On the from of women's issues. I hope one day we as a people are mature enough to address race and women's issues. Unfortunately what this last couple of weeks showed us is we are nowhere close to taking those issues on without acting like a bunch of 2 year olds.
Posted March 21, 2008 | 10:21 PM (EST)