Is Indiana in Play?

I'll admit it.  The prospect of a Democratic candidate for the Presidency picking off the Hoosier state gets me a little bit excited.  And while I often think of my home state of Indiana as among the reddest of the red states, I believe it's entirely possible that Indiana could go blue this November.  I'm not saying it's likely.  It's not.  But there's a chance, and if there's a chance that we could even force McCain to waste precious time and resources on a state that should be declared in his pocket by 6:01 EST, on 4 November, then we've won an important battle.  

Seven Reasons Democrats can Carry Indiana!

A few assumptions and facts that could lead to a blue Indiana.

#1: Barack Obama Is Our Nominee

I don't say this to insult the Clinton supporters still fighting for their girl, but to simply lay out the most likely scenario.  

Candidate Obama carries with him some serious implications.  First, despite being the most loyal of Democratic voting blocs, black voters have never gotten out to vote in numbers that make them a force in Presidential politics.  Indiana is NOT a heavily black state (2005 estimates had the black population around 9%).  But Indiana blacks have been a disproportionately small piece of the voters who turnout.  In 2004, when black turnout was higher than ever, they still only amounted to 7% of the Hoosiers who voted (according to CNN exit polls).  

But a black candidate could, potentially, break all records for black turnout.  Imagine the power that black voters would have if they simply turned out at the same rates as their white counterparts!  It's a small part of the population, but moving them from 7% to, say, 10% of the voters...that could be huge!

#2: Hillary Clinton is the Vice Presidential Nominee

Why?  Because putting her on the ticket is the most obvious way to bring the party together quickly, and to ensure that as many of those Hoosiers who voted in the Democratic primary as possible will be voting Obama/Clinton in November.  They are supported by different demographics, and combining those demographics would ensure a November win, even if they don't carry Indiana.  Combining Obama's support among blacks, upper income whites, and the college educated with Clinton's support from blue-collar voters, women, and Latinos...that's unbeatable!

#3: Indiana Just Chose a Female for it's Democratic Nominee for Governor

This is important.  It gives Obama a chance to "make peace" with female Hoosiers by supporting a strong woman for Governor.  It's just one of many steps Obama can take to make appeals to women voters, who he'll need to beat McCain.

#4: Things Will Continue to Go Poorly in Iran and in the Economy

I hate to count on things going poorly in our country, but that's what's happened, and I don't see much reason to believe anything will change by November.  Oh, I'm sure we can count on Bush to tap the strategic oil reserve in October to lower prices and help McCain, but Iraq will have killed God knows how many of our troops, we still won't have caught or killed bin Laden, people will still be losing their jobs, and McCain will still support helping the rich over the poor.

Indiana really is a mix of the four states that surround it (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and Kentucky, for the geographically challenged).  That means it's hit hard by recession and the loss of manufacturing jobs.  People here will be ready for some serious results to help the working class, and it's going to be a tough sell to say that John McCain is the guy to provide that help.

#5: It's Not Clear How Red We Really Are

Let's be honest.  For Hoosiers, John Kerry wasn't "our kind of people" in so many ways.  So I'm hesitant to use a 60-40 result against him as reason to despair about our chances in 2008.

Now, Obama has yet to fit comfortably in that Midwestern, blue collar atmosphere.  But unlike Kerry, who tried so hard and failed ("Lambert Field," a clearly brand new hunting jacket, etc.), Obama laughs off the differences and reminds us that that's what makes America great.  How else can a black guy from Chicago play it?  

And before Dubya came, the "redness" (it's like a rash that won't go away, really) of Indiana wasn't clear because of the effect of Ross Perot on the elections of 1992 and 1996.  Dole and Bush I got under 50%, here, and Bush I, who campaigned during a sluggish economy, didn't crack 43%.  There's a case to be made that the sluggish economy (affecting swing voters) and some who are less than enthusiastic about the Republican nominee could have a serious effect on the outcome.  

#6: Opposition to McCain among Conservatives

McCain has two choices.  He can pander to his base, which will turn off independents who've bought into the false meme of McCain as a rogue and a maverick who does what he believes rather than toeing the party line.  Or, he can deal with the fact that the GOP base has also bought into that theme, and that they don't like him because of it.  It's a tough choice, because he risks losing the great American middle, which he surely needs in an election where the deck is already stacked against the GOP, but he also risks strengthening a challenge from his right by alienating the base.  This is NOT an election like 2004, where pushing divisive strategies will rally the base to the point that they can overcome many negatives.  The negative issues for the GOP are just too many.

So what will McCain do?  He's got a tough fence to straddle to pull this off.  And if that challenge comes from the right?  Well, it only takes a plurality to win!

#7: Did You See How Many Voted Democrat in the Primary?!?!

Did you?  Well, if you didn't let me share the number with you:

1,275,000

HOLY.

SHIT.

That number is three hundred thousand more votes than John Kerry got in the 2004 general election in Indiana.  
Kerry lost Indiana by half a million.  That's an enormous margin for a state this size (I'm now hitting myself for playing into the "Indiana's a small state" meme...we're actually 15th largest, last I checked!).  But this primary beat Kerry's general total by 33%.

It is more votes that George W. Bush got in Indiana in 2000!  

Let me repeat that: Democrats just got more primary votes in Indiana than George W. Bush got here in the 2000 general election.

That's stunning.  

Now, for the sake of honesty, 18% of the voters said they wouldn't vote for Obama come November, and 10% of the voters were Republicans.  Where these numbers truly lie is debatable.  I'm not going to write off all 10% of that Republican vote as "Operation Chaos," because I guarantee you that there are thousands of Indiana Republicans who are frustrated with how things have gone.  And I'm not betting that all those Clinton supporters, who currently say they won't support Obama in November, will carry through with that threat.  It's also impossible to know how many voted in the Republican primary because they wanted to vote in other races (the anti-Dan Burton vote at my precinct was considerable!).    

Some of those voters will be lost.  But at worst (18%), Democrats still have over a million primary voters who're planning to vote for the Democratic nominee come November.

Bush won 1.25 and 1.48 million Hoosier votes in his two elections.  If those numbers slip for McCain and rise for Obama/Clinton, then Indiana is in play.

In all honesty, it will take the perfect storm to make Indiana a blue state in November.  But hey!  Some of us have to vote here anyway, right?  We might as well try!  And it IS possible.  If McCain gets that 1.2 million votes that Bush got in 2000, that's a number that a united Democratic party can reach.  And if McCain gets less...oh, it's game on!

Let's get out there and win this thing!    

 

Update [2008-5-9 15:28:31 by freedom78]:Since some are getting all in a huff because I based this on Obama as the nominee, let me just add that if Obama and Clinton were switched in #1 & #2, I think the effect would be largely the same.

Having never worked the polls, before, I wasn't sure what I was getting in to when I heeded my party's call for help.  You see, I live in Hamilton County, Indiana --- Dan Burton country --- and the Democratic interest in voting for "No Candidate Filed" in 1/3 of all races, let alone working all day at the polls, is not very strong.

But, hey, I'm in grad school, and my wife is working on her teaching certificate, so a couple hundred bucks and a little pride in having done our civic duty was appealing.  What I did NOT expect, however, was for the day to be as inspiring as it was.

My New Hero

The highlight of my day, without question, was the arrival at our polling station of a pregnant woman and her husband.  She looked, quite literally, ready to burst, and the poll Inspector looked at her and asked "are you on your way to the hospital?"

"Yes," she replied.

It turns out that this soon-to-be mother was on her way to the hospital because she had begun having contractions!

Let me repeat that.

A woman who was HAVING CONTRACTIONS took the time to stop ON HER WAY TO THE HOSPITAL to vote.  Of course, she chose a Democratic ballot, to my great pride, and I did my best to quickly but clearly explain how to use the new computerized voting machines in our county.  It is not easy to find the balance between speed, to get her on her way to the hospital, and clarity, so that I wouldn't have to sacrifice MORE time re-explaining the procedure.

I haven't a clue how she voted.  And, I really don't care.  What matters is that this woman, who I truly think is heroic, albeit in a less than traditional way, cared enough about voting in our party's primary election to stop on the way to the hospital to give birth.

Amazing!  With supporters like this, how can we possibly lose?

Disenfranchisement

I had expected any number of problems, from an aggressive Republican worker, who might challenge voters, to problems with voters meeting the requirements of Indiana's newly upheld voted ID laws.  

Fortunately, in my precinct, the Republican Inspector was my father's neighbor, who was far from unreasonable, and no one failed to meet the ID law.  I don't want this comment to be misunderstood as my support for the law, as I do not have that position.  I am simply glad that we didn't have to turn anyone away.  However, it is impossible to know how many were dissuaded from showing up to vote, because of the law, and my precinct was in a mostly white, middle class and above area of the town, so groups you'd expect to be affected by the law weren't even a large minority of our electorate.

One voter was disenfranchised, though not intentionally.  An elderly woman, she had difficulty with the new machines, thinking it worked as a touchscreen, rather than pressing the buttons beside the screen to make her selection.  As such, she never actually voted for any candidates, and we didn't notice until she left the building.  This happened early in the day, and affected the ways in which I explained the process to voters for the rest of the day.

The Highs and Lows of the Tally

Tallying the votes, at the end of the day, was an exciting moment.  I had expected Obama to carry my county easily, and so was surprised to see that Clinton carried my precinct by ten votes.  But I was also excited to see that Dan Burton LOST my precinct by seven votes...a result that wouldn't hold across the District, unfortunately.  

More important than any of this, however, was that turnout (counting absentee, but not early voting) was above 40%.  And, at the end of the day, more Democratic ballots had been cast than Republican, by a scant margin.  If you're at all familiar with this part of Indiana, you'd know that this is almost unbelievable.  

This election is fully winnable in November, both for the Presidency and to increase the Congressional majorities.  The enthusiasm for Democrats is as high as it's been in a LONG time.

Funny Old People

The more amusing moments of the day came almost exclusively from elderly voters, and mainly because they just don't give a damn about the privacy of their vote!

A few quick stories:

1.) As one elderly man voted at one machine, his wife at another, the man suddenly exclaimed "OH! Mitt Romney's on here!"  His wife quickly hollered back at him "OH! I like him!" to laughter from the rest of the precinct.

2.) One woman seemed unsure about which Presidential candidate should receive her vote.  I was standing nearby, mainly because her behavior indicated she might have difficulty working the machine, though she seemed to think I was her personal election adviser, as she asked me repeatedly "Who's this guy [Mike Huckabee]?" and "Is he any good?"

3.) One elderly man poured over his ballot for what seemed like an eternity.  He'd say "President of the United States," look at the choices, and then proclaim "I don't see him on here!"  He'd then stare at the screen for a minute or so, before repeating this process again and again.  Finally, worried that he was having trouble reading the screen, and thinking that I'd have to assist him and fill out the "Voter Assistance" form, I asked him WHO, exactly, he was looking for, to which he loudly responded "I can't remember what the Hell his name is!"  When he finally finished voting, his wife asked him how it went and, once again, he proclaimed to the precinct "I couldn't remember who the Hell I wanted to vote for [in the GOP Presidential race]!"

THIS WEEK IN SNARK!

Taking the dumbest stories of the week and manipulating them for our enjoyment.

*************

Clinton Wins Earl Wayne Macintyre

MACINTYRELAND - Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama by one vote in the Macintyreland Democratic presidential caucuses Saturday. The count of the one ballot cast took only seconds, though the mandatory recount, due to the slim margin of victory, went into the wee hours of the morning.

Neither candidate campaigned in Macintyreland, the sole resident of which is a member of the Michigan Militia who has declared himself his own state, though it is widely guessed that Clinton's childhood stories of learning to shoot likely won over Mr. Macintyre.

Asked about her victory over Obama, Clinton yelled "We obliterated him!"  The Obama campaign issued a statement Saturday night promising that he would "continue to champion the issues facing Earl Wayne Macintyre."  

Mr. Macintyre, the state's delegate, will be in Denver later this year, yet it is expected that he will be unwilling to part with his arsenal, as would be required to gain entrance to the nominating convention.  Macintyre is in talks with the DNC to appear in a speaking role, via satellite from the nearby Holiday Inn.

*************

McCain: No Blood For Rugs!

PHOENIX - In response to a question at a town hall meeting last Friday, about a US military presence in the Middle East, Republican John McCain said something that raised more than a few eyebrows.

"My friends, I will have flooring policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on fancy rugs from Iran that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in Iran, or to support coups to ensure our floors are properly insulated," McCain said.

This didn't go over well with a generally friendly crowd and, while it was largely assumed this cold reaction was due to an unwillingness to admit our actions in Iran have been due to a rug shortage, several key Republicans admitted, off the record, that they were, in fact, disappointed that McCain is caving in to the hardwood flooring and linoleum lobbies.

The expected GOP nominee sought to clarify his comments later, after his campaign plane landed in Phoenix. He said he didn't mean the U.S. is planning to invade Iran for pretty rugs.

"No, no, I was talking about that we had supported the Shah for rugs," McCain told reporters.  "Iran had this really nice red dye, back then...it was great!"

When told that Iran had gone to the United Nations to protest his comments, McCain responded with "those Sunnis drive me nuts!"

THIS WEEK IN SNARK!

Taking the dumbest stories of the week and manipulating them for our enjoyment.

**************
Obama Insults Lobster Boy!

In a campaign appearance last week, Barack Obama mocked, in less than subtle fashion, the Lobstery Boy.  As can be seen in the photo below, during his speech Obama mimicked the Lobster Boy's trademark claw:

While he has denied intentionally mocking Lobster Boy, Obama's primary opponent, Senator Hillary Clinton, was quick to capitalize on the situation, issuing mailers to Carnies across the Midwest:

Will Lobster Boy be left out of Obama's healthcare plan?

Hillary-Care covers lobster people, because she cares. With roots in the carnival, Hillary spent her summers learning about the Lobster people. Barack Obama? He mocks Lobster Boy, and pushed for S.718, a bill to create a universal size of scissor finger-holes...a size that wouldn't be usable by lobster people. Can we really trust Barack Obama with the power of the Presidency?
************** ***

As we all know, John McCain (R - Warmongerville) has stated that a commitment of 100 years in Iraq would be just fine.  The media sunk its claws in on this one, before taking them out in a well timed exercise of "but what he really meant...", explaining that McCain is actually calling for a deployment much like what we currently have in Korea (or Japan...or Germany).

Leaving aside arguments about the merits of military deployments to Korea , there's a larger point that the media has generally ignored.  

An American presence in Iraq ---even as a peacekeeping force or simply in the same "rent-a-base" fashion we see around the world--- would act as free propaganda for al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

As the initial American invasion of Iraq, based from Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War, was one of the primary reasons for the instigation of anti-American terror, so too would a permanent force of Americans in Iraq act as a reason for violence, not just against our soldiers, but against Americans and American interests around the globe.  While our presence in Iraq might not be quite so contentious as it is in Saudi Arabia, home to Islam's holiest sites, we can hardly rely on al Qaeda to be so kind as to make that distinction.  

But this isn't about al Qaeda.  Terrorists will draw the line of their propaganda where they will, and I've little doubt that, if we had no forces anywhere in the Middle East, we'd remain a target for other reasons.  What this IS about is public opinion across the Middle East --- giving those inclined to hate us one less reason to do so, and those inclined to like us one more reason to do so.  It's about taking away one more thing that, when pointed to as evidence of American Imperialism and hate of Islam, seeps into the consciences of generations of children.  It's part of the slow battle not to defeat those who are terrorists, but to defeat a desire to commit acts of terror and violence among those who remain uncommitted to doing so and to slowly diminish the potential base or terror recruits.

The Iraq War is a disaster.  In terms of long term costs, however, even a peace-time mission in Iraq would be a potentially much larger disaster.  It would be a fundamental failure to learn from past mistakes.  John McCain clearly has not learned from those mistakes, and his election would send a critical message that we, the American people, are committed to a military presence that is offensive to the people of the Middle East.  That would be, I'm afraid, another disastrous mistake.

Not to rehash this Bosnia business, but the quote I want to discuss is part of the larger Bosnia story.

In video of Hillary Clinton's Bosnia remarks she says:

There was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the President couldn't go, so send the First Lady.

Now, the Bosnia stuff aside, I think this is an important point, especially when contrasted with the
the Obama Doctrine (for those who missed it, it's a great piece).

Now, I'm not going to say that this quote of Senator Clinton's actually reflects her views, nor do I want to downplay the significance of having the First Lady visit another state.  In fact, this diary isn't even about her views.  Perhaps this was just joking banter among the White House staff.  And, clearly, she was mostly referring to Bosnia as "too dangerous."  But this statement does reflect a fundamental problem with US foreign policy.  These places that are "too small, too poor" are the same places, in many cases, where anti-US/West hate thrives, and should be a focal point of our positive foreign policy approach (in addition, of course, to fighting terrorism militarily).  The idea that a place could be "too poor" to be visited by the President of the United States is stunningly ignorant of the fact that the biggest source of the world's problems is poverty and that extremism's taproots are often found in impoverished countries or communities.

I would argue that visiting the poorest states and nations should be a priority for any American President, and that aiding them in building a healthy economy and in upholding human rights are among the most important foreign policy goals we could have.  They're far more important than forcing elections on a state that clearly hasn't overcome the obstacles to a functional democracy, and then claiming that democracy is on the rise.  We have focused our foreign policy, since World War II, on who in a given state controls the reins of power.  When democracy elects someone pro-American, we hail democracy!  When it elected someone socialist or communist, during the Cold War, we'd support a coup and then hail a strong anti-communist leader!  Has this really changed all that much?  In focusing on power, we're ultimately forgetting the idea of the social contract, and that no matter the type of government, the true power lies with the people's willingness to follow where the government would lead.  In Iraq, we won the traditional war (pre-insurgengy) and then tried to win the hearts and minds.  This approach is backward.  We should try to win hearts and minds, such that democratic leaders are friendly with us because their people are and such that, should non-democratic regimes be overcome either through violence or a peaceful transition, that the newly elected democrats of those countries are predisposed to befriend us, not because we insulate their power but because we've acted toward them in a friendly and helpful manner.  Can any state truly be "too poor" to deserve our attention?  I think not.

And, of course, the same applies to these states that are "too small."  Too small?  There were 19 hijackers on 9/11.  How small a state must one be that it cannot possibly produce 19 extremists?  It took fewer still to attack the USS Cole, and fewer again to bomb the Marine barracks in Beirut.  How small a state is too small to contribute to such extremism?    

Unfortunately, we have been more interested in creating leaders who'll agree with us than in creating partner states that are friendly toward us because we've been friendly and helpful toward them.  Now, in this even Bush has done some good, particularly with his Africa AIDS policy, though it's misguided in efforts to make a practical disease prevention policy fit a moral code, as if disease ravaging a continent isn't far more of a moral problem than a lack of abstinence and monogamy.  But we've at least turned some resources and interest toward a continent where extremism has a foothold.

Of course, we can't simply react to extremism; we must be proactive.  If we know that poverty is one of the primary causes that allows it to gain traction, then surely combating poverty the world over is important as a national security goal.  Instead, we wait until extremism has a foothold and then combat it.  This, of course, lends voice to a valid question: why didn't the United States care about us before extremism?  This must be combated!  And, I do not simply mean that we should combat it by giving aid and "throwing money" at the poverty problem.  As rich as the West is in comparison to the rest of the world, we cannot possibly hope to provide enough welfare to raise the world out of poverty.  Instead, our assistance must be in building economies that can be sustained in an increasingly global economy, supporting basic labor reforms, and this must be complimented with a basic but unwavering support for increasing human rights among states with governments of any and all types.  

Even when our military is on offense, it's because we, the United States, are on defense.  We've been on defense long enough.  It's time to go on offense on ALL fronts, and that doesn't mean drumming up a war with Iran but a war against poverty, genocide, starvation, and the other afflictions that fester and make the world ripe for extremist messages.

In watching the 2008 Democratic Party Primaries, I am reminded of one of the more amusing quotes from Mel Brooks's comedy classic Spaceballs:

Now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

If you're like me at all, and I suspect you are, then you've a pretty strong opinion as to which side in the general represents "good."  And despite having an election set upon a silver platter, Democrats have a real chance to blow this thing.

Good is dumb.  

There are so many ways in which this is true of our 2008 Democrats.

#1: The Proportional Representation System of Delegate Allocation

Now, I'm all for PR.  It's much more responsive to the will of the voters and countries that use it tend to have more responsive governments.

But you've got to wonder if the Democrats' use of PR in allocating delegates has cost us this time.  Consider the Republican race for the nomination.  John McCain, widely disliked among the GOP base, eeks out victories in New Hampshire and Florida, giving him serious momentum heading into Super Tuesday where he effectively (though not mathematically) seals the deal.  The base's love affair with Mitt Romney isn't enough to keep his candidacy going, and he drops out and subsequently supports his rival.  That was about a month ago, and McCain has been in general election mode ever since.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have created a system where, between two well liked candidates, no enormous lead can be created and even a moderate lead is difficult to overcome.  In other words, we've created a race where a small lead plays like a large one, but which is small enough to prevent a trailing candidate from having to get out "for the good of the Party."

Now, that last comment may seem anti-Clinton, but it's not intended as such, even though I'm on record as an Obama supporter.  It's more of a commentary on the state in which this process has left us.

The GOP system isn't entirely majoritarian.  In fact, by my count (based on RCP information), there are only twelve such contests.    But of those twelve, nine are clustered on or before Super Tuesday, creating the possibility for a candidate to truly separate from the pack in a way that could not be overcome. In addition, there are some Republican contests that are allocated strangely...the key one being California, where McCain won 42% of the vote, yet received 158/170 delegates.  

Suffice it to say, had the Democrats used the same system in these same states, this process would be all but over.  Senator Clinton would gain +55 delegates (Obama would lose 54) in the winner-take-all states.  That's enough to make this contest MUCH closer than it currently is.  And, if Florida counts, that's another majoritarian system, so that's +185 for Hillary.  Adding on the convoluted GOP approach to California, we can assume that she likely would have gotten at LEAST 300 of the 370 delegates...and likely more.  Assuming 300, that's +97 for her, and -97 for Obama.  All that adds up to Hillary +337, Obama -151.  

Game over.    

Now, I would be disappointed to see my candidate lose...but at least it would have been done by now, before it got too divisive, and we could be focusing on the general election and getting healthcare and ending war.  Instead, we're AT war.

Good is dumb.

#2: Superdelegates

Superdelegates?  Really?  Let me get this straight.  As a diary or two on MyDD have pointed out (and rightly so) the idea that Superdelegates were created to reinforce the will of the voters makes no sense.  After all, if a candidate has already won the nomination, why does that need reinforcing?  Thus, the only real purpose of Superdelegates seems to be to override the voters...when necessary.  Of course, "when necessary" will vary in the eyes of the beholder, but the point remains logically sound.  But common sense tell us that such an overriding of the voters would lead to a revolt among the supporters of the presumptive winner, turned loser, one has to question the wisdom of creating this institution in the first place.  It can do little good, in reaffirming what needs not be reaffirmed, but great harm, in overturning the will of the voters.

But the presence of such a silly system has other implications.  The most obvious of these is that it is undemocratic in nature, and that's hardly a strong calling card.  And, when the GOP asks "Do you really want more government?" and quickly follows up with "The Democrats do!," they can point with great mirth at the Superdelegates.  "Look," they'll say, "the Democrats can't even properly run their own party! Do you really want them creating more intrusive bureaucracy?"  And the people will say "No."

Good is dumb.

#3: Stripping Key States of their Delegates

Florida and Michigan.  They broke the rules.  They needed to be reprimanded.  But a 100% stripping of delegates?  

Oh, no.

It's clear that Florida's crafty Republican governor is behind at least that state's choice to move up the primary, and it's as if the Democrats walked right into the trap.  Michigan clearly did it for other reasons.  I don't know if our candidate would have won Florida in the fall, but this certainly doesn't help.  Even if they're seated in the long run, it will still leave a bad taste in voters' mouths.  

100%.  It was such a bad idea.  Strip them of their Superdelegates.  Cut their pledged delegates by 25%.  Anything else.  

But this action hurt doubly.  Not only does it make the Democratic Party seem bad, but there was a period of time where voters in these states got to hear GOP messages, but not Democratic ones.  Even if Hillary and Obama were going at it over the relative virtues of their healthcare plans, it would be with the clear acknowledgment, by Democratic candidates, that we NEED a healthcare plan.  Instead, those voters got to hear why the war is important, and how the Bush tax cuts are helping the economy.  Lies, but when you repeat these things enough, into the ears of the uninformed...well, an uninformed vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

Good is dumb.  

#4: Infighting

Whether it's the calls of racism and sexism, by both sides, the blatantly false mailers, from both sides, or just the simple failure to focus on any of the criminals in the current administration or the man who seeks to replace them in name, but not in policy, we have all failed to maintain what was, once, a fairly civil campaign that had the country focused where it needed to be --- on the failures of George W. Bush and what that means if we elect John McCain President of the United States.

I don't pretend to argue that the anger or resentment from either side isn't well founded.  I'm angry at what the Clinton campaign has done to my candidate, and I'm well aware that Clinton supporters feel exactly the same.  It's justified on both sides...it really is.  And should Hillary Clinton lose this nomination, I'll feel quite bad for her supporters, because it just plain sucks to lose after coming so close.  And if Obama loses...well, I'll wallow in my own misery for a bit, probably lash out at Clinton supporters on occasion, but will eventually pull it together in time to vote against McCain come November.  Living in the reddest county of one of the reddest states, my neighbors will likely shit their pants when I replace my Obama sign with one for Clinton.  Or maybe I'll put both out, just to see if their heads explode.  

But that's me.  From top to bottom, from candidates, to campaigns, to surrogates, to supporters, the Democratic Party infighting needs to stop.  I'm disappointed in both candidates right now, because this helps John McCain more than it helps either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.  

It helps racists like Bill Cunningham in Cincinnati or Rep. King in Iowa.

And it comforts sexists like that guy who told Hillary to "Iron My Shirt."  

It takes a time when progressive ideals like universal healthcare are FINALLY really appealing to the public ear, and wastes it.

A win for a real liberal, with a Democratic majority, and a strong eight years...think what that could do?  Americans would see that these ideals, which we ALL believe in, are pretty damned good for America.  It would force the GOP to the left to compete.  It's been too long since the GOP has been forced left.  Rather, we've been forced to the right, having to look strong on security, despite the fact that the GOP is the primary cause of our security concerns in the first place!  

Say it with me people.

Good is dumb.

But knowing you have a problem is the first step, right?  

Let's win this thing.

As we all know, a debate rages on about what to do about Michigan and Florida.  Should we seat those delegations "as is"?  Or should we disregard that vote, either standing pat on the 100% penalty on these stats, or having a re-vote to replace the earlier results?  

Senator Clinton has taken a lot of flack for the following comment about the Michigan and Florida votes:

"The results of those primaries were fair and they should be honored."

Leaving aside the Florida primary, which is really an entirely different beast from what happened in Michigan, I find that there is, indeed, a wealth of precedent for Senator Clinton's claim that the Michigan vote was fair.  There have been many elections, such as the one in Michigan, where someone was absent from the ballot, the results were claimed to be fair and, later, those results were borne out in the makeup of a legislature or in the election of one candidate over another.  

For example:

Keeping Republicans out of a democratic process...
helps to achieve a fair election.

Some third party candidates don't meet ballot requirements.

Another candidate overcoming 'uncommitted.'

There are more examples, of course, but there's really no need to beat a dead horse when we can clearly see, from these elections, that there is precedent for Senator Clinton's claims that the Michigan vote was "fair" and "should be honored," despite the fact that, in each of the incidences above, someone whined about the process being patently unfair.  Face it, folks.  Simply claiming that something is "unfair" doesn't make it so!  

Now, I know that there will continue to be debate about what should be done with Florida and Michigan.  But we (yes, that means you, Obama supporters!) cannot dispute that she is acting within the realm of legal precedent.  Indeed, considering the evidence that exists out there, I'd say Obama now has an uphill battle on his hands.