wasn't huckabee on there too?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

these are my observations.

After 4 years of the Shrub Americans didn't get it together and tuff his ass out. It is was time for a change then but now whoever becomes President out of the three can qualify as change and so I don't think US Americans really care that much who the hell it is. It will change not by choice but merely default.

I don't think enough US Americans are ready for a female president or a person of colour president. I think both face serious dangers from whackjobs in the country called the "United" States.


Time will tell the story.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Judging from the higher turnouts and tons of money being collected by the Dems I can't see them not winning in the end. The fact that the Dem primary is taking so long and is being combated so energetically is a sign of electoral health, not a cause for pessimism. Also I saw this morning that the idea of running together was finally floated by one of the candidates, so I'd say it's a stretch to characterize the process as so acrimonious it could split the party.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

This primary has proven that money is less of a factor in determining the nomination, let alone the general election. Romney had more money than all the GOP candidates, but only won Michigan, and Huckabee had the smallest purse, but he was the last to drop out.

I would agree that the high turnout is good, but the Democratic party will suffer in the long run if the nomination isn't decided before the convention in August. It will suffer a divide within the party, and it will suffer because there's less time to focus on the GE. It's not a stretch at all to recognize there's a chasm growing as we speak.

As for a combined ticket, running together would hurt Obama, not Hillary. And although Barack may not view it that way, his supporters would be damn disappointed if he climbed onto a VP ticket after the negative, spurious campaign Hillary has run.

The Obama as VP "offer" was the equivalent of "Would you like to work for me as my maid?" It would be seen as an insult by his constituency moreso than an olive branch.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Romney's money was out of his own pocket, so it wasn't much of an indicator of his actual political momentum. I agree money may be counting for less in this election than is typical but my point is that, along with the voter turnouts, the aggregate amount of money collected by Clinton and Obama signals there is significant momentum on the Dem side. As for the party getting too divisive if we do not wrap up primaries soon, or one faction feeling insulted by a VP slot...I feel these notions give too little credit to the rank and file voters powering all this momentum and enthusiasm. What exactly will divide Dems? Everyone seems to agree the candidates are very close policy wise. Are these two individuals so charismatic that either one's failure shatters all that momentum? Presumably the loser will be gracious enough to turn his/her charisma to work for the other, so even if one buys into this 'Democrats-as-personality-cult' stuff the media is feeding us it doesn't hold up to reason that the party collapses if one of these personality's loses. My take on this all is that democracy is generally a good thing, that choice is good, and this extended & in-depth primary season is exactly what everyone claims they wants until it comes about. Hell even the media, the culprits powering all this Dem self-doubt, wins as more meatheads tune in to watch the horse-race.

Edited at 2008-03-05 09:46 pm (UTC)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm not sure if I've followed all of that, but my post was a reflection of what I've observed amongst pro-HRC and pro-Obama camps, neither of which I'm a member.

Many Dems are dissatisfied with the Democratic Party and are looking to jump ship. I would like to believe that fanaticism is not what powers either Dem candidates' campaigns, but there is enough polarization out there to feel that this primary will be the straw that breaks the camel's back and cause the party to splinter.

I'm not one for predicting the future, but I wouldn't be surprised that when this election year is all said and done, a new, more vocal, more active political party is born from the Democratic infighting. A lot of people are disheartened by the 2-party system, regardless of their opinions on the effectiveness of democracy.

The reason so many people, especially those 25-and-under, have rallied around Obama is because they want a break from the politics-as-usual mentality that got the US into the quagmire its in today. They think Obama will deliver that, and Hillary won't. It's not the policy views alone that decide why people choose to support a candidate. For some, Obama is the change they want to see in the world, and Hillary's method of operations screams she's the opposite.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

I agree with that dichotomy, also that the competitive energy built up in the primary could charge up the younger more progressive faction of the party. I don't think that will mean Democrats suffer in the long run though, I think it will be a benefit.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)