I don't want to re-hash this primary's sexism with Gov. Palin.
I disagree with Gov. Palin politically, but it's time that all men and women take a stand and say:
1. Children of candidates are off limits. The gov and her family did not hide this from the public. They did not lie about this to the public.
2. A woman, who is also a mother, can govern just as effectively as a man.
3. A child's mistakes do not mean that his/her mother is a "poor mother." I read on KOS that because Gov. Palins's daughter is pregnant, how can she be expected to govern the nation? That's the same as Michelle Obama's line against Hillary...how can we expect her to govern the country when she can't even keep her own house in order.
I really think we need to take a step back and think before we post. Let's stand up to racism and sexism whenever it is touted...on the left or right.
from what I read, whether it is spin or not, McCain knew about this and didn't care. Which actually is kind of refreshing. We need people from all walks of life in government. I don't think this reflects negatively on Palin or her family at all.
I really don't think that Palin's daughter's pregnancy will matter much. It's not like she was lying about it to begin with. But this is exactly the type of politics and discourse that Obama stated he did not want to engage in. He purposefully asked to not have Michelle and his children brought into the spotlight. So what, Palin's daughter is pregnant. We all have friends and family who have been in similar circumstances. Let's not become the Right and judge this...leave the girl alone.
Would the media be making the same brouhaha if this was a man and his daughter was pregnant. Other blogs like Kos are trying to link Palin's poor mothering with what happened with her daughter. Let's just stop all of this before it crosses the line.
Even I have to admit, I was disappointed with her performance last night.
And then I woke up today and thought, a month ago, Obama and his supporters were arguing that Hillary would drop out after she lost NC and IN by 20 points.
Well, she won Indiana and lost NC by 14. Now losing NC by 14 is upsetting, but considering it will be a red state come Nov, does it matter?
And Indiana is also a red state come Nov, but it borders Obama's and it should have been won by him...and it wasn't.
I have to give credit to Obama: losing Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, California, New York and Texas took a lot of effort, and to still be considered a potential Dem nominee after that, well, my hat is off to him.
"On the eve of the North Carolina Democratic Primary, with 25% of votes already cast, Barack Obama has no breathing room in his hope to defeat Hillary Clinton in popular votes."
This one may be a squeaker come tomorrow night. And the worst thing to happen to Obama tomorrow evening is having the talking heads spin Hillary's double digit win in Indiana while they all wait for the votes to be tallied in North Carolina.
If Indiana goes pretty much as I expect it (a comfortable HRC win), the story of the night may be Indiana, because it will give talking heads a storyline to keep repeating while they count the votes in NC. The last thing Obama wants tomorrow night is his win in NC to be overshadowed for a few hours by the pundits asking, "Why couldn't he win in his neighboring state?"
I am a Hillary supporter and this is the type of disingeniousness from Obama supporters that I truly despise. We never argue that small states that Obama won didn't matter.
All of the states matter. The only caveat that I would state is that Obama won many smaller caucus states, which is fair, and which is within the rules; however, when comparing caucus participation to primary participation, there really is no comparison.
In other words, if Texas just had a caucus, Obama wins. With the primary, Clinton wins. The same almost happened in Washington state (Obama won the primary by only a few points, but the caucus was a route.)
Now, if you had a choice for implementing a voting system, where you wanted to capture most of the votes and true preferences of ALL of the potential voters in a state, would you implement a) a caucus, or b) a primary?
That's the only distinction I make when assessing Obama wins vs. Hillary wins.
Her endgame is that by winning the popular vote, the large industrial states needed to win in November, and by positioning herself as a "fighter" and tough-as-nails no-nonsense leader, the supers will not be foolish enough to take a gamble on a novice like Obama.
I can't stress the popular vote enough. My gut tells me that the supers are looking for something concrete to point to which makes their argument easy for supporting Clinton. When Clinton clinches the popular vote after all the primaries, I think her argument will be just as effective as Obama's argument that he leads by about 100 pledged delegates.
When evaluating their strengths, Obama played well with the grassroots activists in caucus states. Clinton won all of the large state primaries because of her appeal to more traditional democrats.
Something tells me that the party elders force Obama to be on Hillary's ticket as a VP, knowing that she is the more seasoned and electable, while acknowledging that he is more charismatic and appealing to younger voters and AA's.