Looks like Hilary won Ohio, and won the primaries in Texas too. So once again, my freakin' vote counts for nothing. On the other hand, my vote in the caucus might, because Obama is ahead in the caucus counting, but with only 5% reporting, that could go either way.
Still, he's ahead in the delegate count, and barring a *huge* shift in momentum that allows Clinton to start blowing out the remaining races, mathematically Obama is still going to win the nomination. But my deeply-held hope that: A) Texas would actually go for the candidate I voted for, for once and B) More importantly, losses in Texas and Ohio would force Clinton to concede so the Democratic party could get on to the important task of running against the Republicans have not come to pass. This race is going to come right down to the wire. I still believe Obama will be the candidate, I still believe he'll beat McCain, but I'm honestly tired of the fight.
But for the Hilary supporters amongst my readers (Hello Manton and wartortle), this was a good day. Congratulations to your candidate. I'm still hoping I don't have to vote for her in November, but she had a good day today.
Of course, the other downer today is that Gary Gygax, father of D&D, died today. D&D has changed a lot since he helped create it, and my enjoyment of the game today owes as much to guys like Bill Slavicek, Mike Mearls, David Noonan, Robin Laws and others as it does to anything Gygax has written for years. But without Gygax, the whole role-playing game thing, which has been a huge part of my life since I was 12 years old, probably never would have happened.
There have been a ton of tributes today, and I can't top any of them. So instead I'll link to my favorites, from Alex Robinson, Penny Arcade and my friend in gaming Nate Southard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm in Ohio and am feeling pretty much the same way you are this morning.
[sigh]
What a long, depressing night. Hopefully the caucases will put Obama over and give him the win in Texas (Y'all have the weirdest voting system there).
Apparently Clinton's pandering to blue-collar "Reagan Democrats", i.e., Archie Bunker-types, is working well for her. Ugh.
I was happy with the results, but I also had some of the same feelings that you did about how long this nomination process is going to go on. In some ways I would have preferred that Obama sweep just so we could call it a day.
But that didn't happen, because the party is divided. I think the best thing for Democrats right now is to stay positive and find a way to make a joint ticket possible, otherwise we risk alienating half the party. I worry about how ugly it will get then.
I've actually started a new site about this: http://www.unitetheparty.com/
I'm not that worried about a divided Democratic party. Honestly, is anyone who is planning to vote Democratic going to vote for John McCain because of in-fighting amongst Clinton and Obama?
Is anyone going to vote third party after what happened in 2000 with Gore/Nader/Bush?
I mean, yes, some will, but enough to be statistically relevant? I don't believe it.
I may be in the minority, but I don't want a joint ticket. I respect Clinton to some degree, I'll vote for her if she's the Democrat choice, but I think she's a drag on an Obama ticket in terms of polarizing undecided or alienated Republican voters. And while her statement about bringing Obama on as a Vice President might have been meant as conciliatory, it came off as condescending, considering that he's leading in delegates and (despite a loss in Ohio and a squeaker that turned out to be a win in Texas) pretty much carrying the momentum.
I disagree with what Clinton said on The Daily Show, that having this division is good for the party. But I also disagree that it's necessarily bad. It gives the McCain camp two targets they have to keep a bead on, it forces both candidates to focus their rhetoric and their policy ideas and it's inspiring some of the most involved politics we've seen in America in quite some time.
If the downside are negative attacks coming from both camps at both candidates? Honestly, I'm kind of OK with that. I'm never thrilled by the charges lobbed at Obama, just as I'm sure, Manton, that you've often found the Obama camp's targeted barbs at Clinton unfair, but at this point, I think either one of them agreeing to a joint agreement is tacitly a surrender, which makes them look politically weak, and I can't see either Obama or Clinton going for it.
Unfortunately it becomes more statistically relevant the longer this drags out. When I heard that a recent poll had 25% of Hillary supporters considering voting for McCain, it scared me. I've long said that either candidate alone can win in November, but it's less certain.
You said you don't want Hillary dragging down the Obama ticket, but imagine if it was reversed how you would feel if she won the nomination and she didn't pick Obama? I think most Obama supporters would be furious. There is also the 16-year White House argument which I think is pretty strong.
Actually, I don't want Obama as my Vice President. I want him as my President. I don't want him as Vice President, where his policies and vision can be watered down by having to serve at the pleasure of another administration, and then in 8 years he can run as a Presidential candidate again.
Especially given the recent track record of Vice Presidents becoming Presidents. Particularly Democrats, but even the Republican who pulled it off was a one-term disaster.
I will go on record as saying that if Clinton wins the nomination, I don't want Obama as her Vice President. I'd rather she had someone like Edwards, or General Clark or, if we want to go for a nostalgia factor that will let folks re-use old bumper stickers, Al Gore. :)
Okay, I respect that. Although if you really want to reuse bumper stickers, imagine all the stickers from the last couple of months that are still on cars. :-)
Post a Comment