So, it's finally here: Super Tuesday.
(Yawn.)
Okay, so I guess it's sort of a big deal. More states are holding primaries on the same day than any other day in our nation's history. The thing is, in any other primary year, this day would be decisive. This year, we're going to end the day much as we began it, at least on the Democratic side -- with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama still very much in the race, with not much room between them.
Things could be a little more exciting on the Republican side, mostly because of the whole "winner-take-all" rules around assigning delegates for each state. Whoever is declared the "winner" in California? New York? Jersey? That's big news.
Because the Democrats are the party of fairness and equality, we split the delegates by Congressional district. It's more equitable, but not quite as dramatic.
What is very cool is that, for the very first time in my adult (voting) life, candidates will actually be paying attention to where I live during the primary season. Barack Obama just opened up a campaign office in Prince George's County, Maryland; Hillary Clinton will be hosting a rally in Northern Virginia tomorrow night. The "Potomac Primary" might actually matter this year. And that's kinda awesome.
I'll cast my vote (for Hillary) next Tuesday with a sense that it actually matters. Obama is clearly going to win DC, but perhaps my vote and a few thousand others will sneak in at least one delegate from the District.
And (I feel like I've spoken and/or typed these words a million times since January), if my candidate doesn't win, I'll gladly hop on board the Obama train and ride it all the way to the general election in November with no regrets. I only hope that all of those people who are currently campaigning for Obama feel the same way about a united Democratic party should Clinton eventually get the nomination. We've got two exceptional (and historic) candidates on our side, both of whom would be ten times the President that John McCain, Mike Huckabee, or Mitt Romney would be.
C'mon, progressive party people ... let's not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, shall we?
28 Told Me a Secret:
I went out and pulled my lever for Obama this morning.
I want change. Replacing yet another Bush with yet another Clinton does not represent change.
Plus, that tear she shed yesterday (hey, it worked before)just really yanked my cynical chain.
I voted today too! But I picked Clinton. Basically because all I see in Obama is a candidate who can speak very well and fire up the troops, but that's about it.
That might be over simplifying things a bit, though.
"all I see in Obama is a candidate who can speak very well and fire up the troops, but that's about it."
Ummm, what other skills does a president need? Seriously. They have staff and advisors who create policies and do all of the heavy lifting.
That is what made Reagan such a popular president. He was an actor, so he could take direction and deliver his lines.
Obama. Me and my squeeze pulled the lever for both candidates, thus canceling each other out. I fully accept both candidates as my own, and will vote for either. I do like Obama more, but not enough to make it just above a coin flip.
I voted for Obama in the NH primary...it was a last minute "which train do I want to be on" kind of decision, and like you said, if Hillary wins, I am on that train too.
I had to make a choice...
XO-1: Last names aside, the policy positions of Clinton and Obama are virtually identical. And honestly? You know what yanks my cynical chain? The word "change." It's been so overused in this campaign, it's become meaningless. Obama stated that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a "step back," but if she steps us back to the '90s, I'll take it. Those were some good times.
J.Z.: I give Obama more credit than that. He's an idealist where Clinton is more pragmatic; she's a familiar face and he's a new kid in school. Each of those positions has pros and cons, but at their core, they're both capable, able options for us.
XO-2: I'd argue that's what made Reagan such a crappy president. And that's what made Bush II the crappiest ever. I want a president to surround him/herself with smart people, but in a perfect world, the Prez would be the smartest.
Tater: That's how I feel as well. If it's Obama, I'll support him, with pleasure.
Jessica: ... and you made a good choice. They're both good choices, which hardly ever happens.
I'll be attending the Colorado Caucus in the pissant town of Nunn 7pm - 9pm tonight. I have no clue what to expect -- ok I lied, think I'm gonna be in a room with a bunch of rednecks.
eric - I agree that "change" has been used to death and has lost a lot of it's meaning. But we have had either a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the past 20 years.
I want something DRASTICALLY different. I want a black man without the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton/Perpetual Victim mentality. I want a black man without any link to slavery. I want a black man whose middle name is Hussein. I want a man that the Kennedy's endorse and pass JFKs torch and legacy. I want Obama to appoint Bill Richardson as his Secretary of State. I want to see the most diverse and qualified administration this country has ever seen. Break the mold. Kick the white, male, conservative, christian, poll-driven pseudo-leadership to the curb forever.
That's what I mean by change.
I never said Reagan was a good president. I said he was popular.
"in a perfect world, the Prez would be the smartest"
I would agree. But go google Adlai Stevenson.
The American electorate is afraid of smart politicians. Americans tend to not want to elect someone they think may be smarter than them.
That is how Dubya got elected. Twice. Even the lowest trailer trash can look at Bush and say "SHeeit. I'm smarter than HIM!"
They hate to be outsmarted. But they are more than willing to be led.
Lost: Ha! Perfect!
XO-3: Don't get me wrong; I don't disparage your choice. He's a good choice, and he'll be my choice if he wins the primary season. I'm still voting for Hillary next week. And while I really admire the fervor of Obama's supporters, I hope that for most of them, "pro-Obama" doesn't equate to "anti-Hillary" to the point where they won't support her if she's the one leading the Democrats into November ...
eric - you have nothing to fear. I can't imagine any Obama voter swinging to The Dark Side. We will support the democratic nominee. But goddamnit, I don't want to see a total of 28 years, almost 3 decades, a third of a century, of nothing but Clintons and Bushes.
We need to break out of this mold and strike off in a mew direction!
How is that not obvious?
XO-4: I'm not voting for Hillary because of her last name, but I also don't hold it against her. When I look at Clinton and Obama, I see two individuals who would represent a positive direction for the country. When I compare them to each other, Hillary Clinton comes out a little ahead for me. George W. Bush isn't the worst President in our history because he was a President's son. He f#%ked it up all by himself. Hillary's success or failure will likewise be her own, and of the choices I've currently got, I think she's the best ... better than Obama by a hair, and better than the Rethugs by a mile.
eric - I hear you, and I understand. You are judging Hillary as a stand-alone candidate. That's very admirable of you.
Republicans won't. Swing voters won't. Independents wont.
The moderates who are so sickened by what the theocrats, Bush and Cheney have done to the Republican party might actually vote for Obama. I've seen it on web sites, I've heard it on NPR and I'm seeing it on CNN right now.
Moderates and independents will NOT vote for Hillary. Their hate for the Clintons is in their DNA. It is visceral.
If you make them choose between Hillary and McCain, they will choose McCain.
If You make them choose between McCain and Obama, a lot of them will go with Obama.
They will vote for a black man whose middle name is Hussein before they will vote for Billary Clinton or a dis-loyal, liberal Republican.
That is what people are missing.
You know what's good? Black bean dip with jalepenos and a cold beer, watching Super Tuesday results unfold on TV. Especially when Romney keeps coming in last, bwa-ha-ha.
I'm not in a super t. state, but will be casting my vote for Obama. I am in no way anti-Hillary; I was undecided up until this past week, actually. I agree with you that Hillary stands on her own, she is not Bill, she is not the Bushes, and a strong woman president would be one hell of a change in my opinion. She's a smart cookie, and I'll gladly and loudly support her if she gets the nomination. I do, however, also agree w/ XO's statement that mods/indies will be less likely to swing left for Hillary, whereas they may for Obama.
I also disagree that Obama is only a good inspirational speaker. It's like people want to say that because of her name, Hillary can not represent change, and because he speaks well, that's ALL there is to Barack. I call bullshit on both.
Anyway, however it shakes out for us, I'm excited. And I'm loving seeing how the repubs are basically working themselves into a fractured tizzy.
XO-5: Believe me, I've heard all of the doubts about Hillary's "electability," and I've carefully considered them. But I look at the way that she won over lifelong conservatives in upstate New York during her Senate run, and how those numbers increased when she ran a second time. I think she can do it.
Cowbell: Yes, we're making history either way, and it's pretty damn exciting. Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann just said that watching the Republican base trying to figure out who their candidate should be "looks like an M.C. Escher drawing." Ha!
eric - "But I look at the way that she won over lifelong conservatives in upstate New York during her Senate run"
* sigh *
lifelong New York state conservatives don't even come close to the visceral Clinton haters in the fly-over states.
New York "conservatives" have always been liberal republicans.
Look what happened to Guiliani.
True, conservative, right-wing Republicans would NEVER have elected Bloomberg for anything.
New York Republicans aren't republicans. They are just conservative democrats.
Hillary Clinton cannot win the General Election.
You people are confused.
XO-6: I appreciate your perspective. But I'm not changing my vote.
eric - "I appreciate your perspective. But I'm not changing my vote."
LOL! Of course not! I'm not suggesting you should. Nor could you (legally).
I'm just trying to talk reason to those multi-coastal blog-readers who haven't yet swallowed the Hillary Kool-Aid.
But at 9:20 Central, I guess I can STFU. LOL!
Peace, my brother. May the best Deomocrat win!
XO-7: Actually, I could -- I don't vote until the 12th. But I'm still going for Hillary. We'll see how it plays out. And if the progressives of the country pick Obama, I'm totally okay with that.
I pulled the lever for Obama last night. Much like Xavier I'm a bit tired of political dynasties and I also agree the Upstate NY Republicans are not like the fly-over state republicans: They are conservative Democrats.
And although I will gladly even happily vote for the eventual Democratic nominee, I can't help thinking that if Hillary is the nominee the Repubs will throw everything at her and then some. They don't know how to run a nasty campaign against Obama without it being obvious it's nasty campaign.
Plus you have to factor in the visceral dislike the establishment press has against Hillary. They HATE her, much like they hated Al Gore and repeated every lie spewed forth from the Right Wing as if it was gospel. Especially that weeping infected gash Chris Matthews who has a big 'ol Man-Crush on John McCain.
Whatever the outcome, fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy ride all the way to the White House!
(Yawn) I voted for Hillary. I'll vote for either Obama or Clinton come November, but I can't say either one of them get me all that fired up. I think Hillary has more political chops than Barrack, but any choice is better than another republican at this point. Whoever gets in in November has an uphill climb ahead of them. It is all going to be about damage control.
RG: I personally don't believe that the Republicans know how to run a clean campaign against anyone. What I suspect is that Hillary is entirely prepared for all the mud they can sling. And if Obama isn't, he should get ready; they're not going to be nice to him just because he's the new kid on the block. Neither Clinton nor Obama are a safe choice, for obvious reasons -- but this year, coming off of a disastrous two-term run of a Republican president, when the GOP can't seem to figure out who they are -- a less-than-safe choice has a pretty good chance.
EvilG: You've said that before -- I'm actually pretty fired up about both of them. When I compare them to Herman Munst-- ... John Kerry, well ... let's just say it feels good to be a Democrat in '08.
I agree with XO upthread. There is a visceral hatred for Hillary that I don't think any manner of reason or logic will overcome. Obama inspires me in way that Hillary just can't touch. There's something calculating behind Clinton that makes me suspicious. Obama is a change agent. He's what we need at this point.
Daddy: Judging from the results of last night's primaries, there are a lot of people who agree with you. There are also just as many who believe that Hillary is the right choice for us right now. Personally, I find her to be just as inspiring as Barack. My point is not a pro-Hillary, anti-Obama tirade. My point is that each of these candidates has a fairly equal shot at the nomination. Hillary might have a tougher time in a general election, but it won't be a cake walk for either one of them. My point is that they're both exceptional people, and that, unless Democrats decide right here and now to enthusiastically support the eventual nominee, whomsoever s/he may be, we're sunk.
I voted for Obama yesterday, but don't worry, I will HAPPILY vote for Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee, just as I did when she ran for senator. United we stand!
daddy cool said,
"There's something calculating behind Clinton that makes me suspicious"
I think I understand what you are getting at, but the other way to read that is "because I can't really articulate why I don't like her, let's just say she's not trustworthy".
Let me be clear, I am not saying that is what you are inferring in your example, however that is the sentiment i come away with from many who really have a visceral dislike for Clinton on the basis of arbitrary factors they know wouldn't stand up to scrutiny.
I resisted commenting yesterday because there's not much more to say that hasn't already been said. That's more or less true today, as last night's results weren't exactly mind-blowing.
The talk of superdelegates deciding the primary has me worried. The nominee should be determined by voters even if only by a slim margin (sort of like the general election *wink*). Superdelegates determining the primaries is basically "the establishment" crushing the spirit of the youngsters and I think it could deflate the momentum driving the enormous turnout in Democratic primaries.
Michael: I think most Obama supporters feel the same way, but I wish Democrats from both campaigns would say so, and more often. Thanks!
Al: HELL, YEAH. Um ... I mean ... you make a very astute point. To be fair, I've heard people say basically the same thing about Obama, but from a different angle. Where Hillary is too cold and calculating, Barack is a little too warm and gregarious. And basically people believe what they want.
Antonio: I don't blame you; this is my blog, and I resisted commenting yesterday! As to the question of superdelegates, you raise a good point. However, superdelegates can change their mind all the way until the convention, and I think that many will be persuaded to follow the lead of the country if the popular vote presents a clear winner in the eyes of the people. Then again, maybe not. But I would hope that many would (particularly those representing states that chose the underdog/popular-vote-getter in the primaries).
Honey bunny, I haven't talked to a Democrat yet who won't be totally thrilled no matter who the candidate is, regardless of who he or she is supporting right now. The momentum that both campaigns keep laying claim to? Yeah, that would be general momentum toward the White House by people who are finally thrilled to death with the choices.
Post a Comment