We know from reports and stories and even from Obama's own mouth that he's not good at paperwork, is possibly lazy, and is not good at details.
Good enough to have managed one of the most well-funded and effective primary campaigns in history. When your troll-ass puts in sixteen hour days traveling around the country campaigning for a year without respite, then maybe I'll start listening to your definition of "laziness".
If he had a smaller margin lead, SDs would have voted for Clinton easily.
Not likely. It would've been difficult to overrule any pledged delegate lead -- people would've raised hell.
For every person like you in caucus state, there is another person who thinks different than you.
Agreed, and if they live in my state and comprise a majority, then they can change the system. However, don't presume to think that you're going to tell those of us in caucus states how to allocate our delegates, because you're not.
So some of us will try to change this old feudal way of democracy.
By "feudal" I think you mean "participatory" -- as in you owe more to the polis than a perfunctory vote every four years. I don't think it's a coincidence that caucuses abound in the parts of the country with the highest rates of voter turnout and civic engagement.
And now the decision. My price for my vote will be: the VP slot for Hillary. That's right, otherwise I'm outa here. I feel, it is the only way she (and since I support her: I) will get the respect that we deserve.
It's all about you, isn't it? The stupid voters in the Democratic Party didn't pick your candidate, so now you're going to punish them unless they put your candidate on the ticket. Well, I'm a committed Gravel supporter. How dare you presume that Hillary Clinton get a spot on the ticket ahead of Mike Gravel -- afterall, who cares what the voters said, Gravel deserves this nomination!!!
This is the first election cycle where the problem of caucuses has actually mattered.
Caucuses only magnified Senator Obama's lead; they didn't create it. Had primaries been held in Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Colorado, Idaho, Washington, etc., Senator Obama still would have won, albeit by a smaller margin.
I hope it gets attention between now and 2012. As in, eliminate 'em.
As in, you don't have any say as to how we in the caucus states allocate our delegates. Primaries use taxpayer money to fund the elections of private political parties. Caucuses are cheap and encourage social-interaction and party-building. I think we'll keep our caucuses, thank you very much.
In addition, caucuses are less accessible not only to the disabled,...
My caucus was in the exact same (wheelchair accessable) building where I cast votes for the general election. Moreover, in Minnesota, one can simply vote and leave. But even in states where that isn't that case, a disabled person need only sit in a particular area for a couple of hours in order to participate in a caucus. I understand that that might be a problem for an extreme minority of disabled people, but I think the vast majority of the disabled are capable of sitting in a spot for a couple of hours. If they cannot, then they certainly aren't capable of working, watching television, going to the park, etc.
but also to working people...
We're all "working people" and those who earn more often work more than those who earn less.
...parents and other care-givers...
I just don't buy it. It's all a matter of priorities. There are very few people in this country that are incapable of securing two hours once every four or eight years to participate in something they're passionate about. The people I know frequently take time off work or time away from their kids in order to attend concerts, go fishing, go to the racetrack, go to a movie, go to a basketball/baseball/football/hockey game, etc. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Senator Clinton's supporters are not as passionate about her candidacy as the majority of Senator Obama's supporters. It's clearly reflected in the attendance of their respective rallies.
This is true. However, had caucuses included active military personnel, Clinton would have done worse; the military is disproportionately comprised of young men and Ron Paul and Barack Obama led all other candidates in military donations.
people with limited English ability, etc.
If you know the name of your candidate in English, you can participate in a caucus. All you have to do is stand in an area.
If Clinton wanted to seriously damage Obama with rhetoric, she could be talking about having the race card played against her.
Oh, Bill already has -- emphatically. He then subsequently denied it despite the fact that he had specifically used the term "race card." For me, it brought back fond memories of that woman he did not have sexual relations with.
I believe it was most definately played against her and so do many of her supporters.
Then you're an idiot. You don't win a contest in which only 20% of the voters are black by demonizing your white opponent. It was in the interest of only one campaign to play the race card and it was something they engaged in frequently. And by and large, it wasn't Obama who called 'em on it -- it was the rest of us. I didn't need Obama to tell me that what Bill said in South Carolina and what Geraldine said and what Hillary told USA Today was designed to inject race into the election; It was the visceral disgust I felt in my gut that told me so.
It's basically a 50/50 primary.
Only in your mind. There's a million different ways you can slice the popular vote, but the point is moot since the only metric that matters, per Hillary Clinton circa January, is the delegate count.
There is one solution and that's to have a unity ticket. Absent that, there won't be any unity this cycle and we all lose. That's reality. It's Obama's call.
Grow up. Every primary election, there's one winner and multiple losers. Obama won, Clinton lost, and Clinton supporters don't get to hold the rest of us hostage because they feel entitled to the nomination. If you win the nomination fair and square, the supporters of the losing candidates aren't entitled to some kind of consolation prize. And if you refuse to vote for the nominee -- despite the fairness of the contest -- because your choice wasn't selected by the voters, then you are neither a Democrat nor a democrat; you're a petulant child who must be assuaged lest you throw a hissy fit.
"I don't care," Horbal said. "Let McCain clean it up for four years, and then we can have Hillary run again."
Hahahaha. It's Hillary or bust for this old dame. Well, even if Obama loses, it's bust I'm afraid. Due to her conduct in this primary campaign, a 2012 Clinton campaign is out of question; there is now a legion of us who'll see to it that Hillary Clinton is NEVER the Democratic nominee for president. And Ms. Horbal should pay more attention to the opinions of the citizens of her native state. Amy Klobuchar, despite the support she received from prominent women's organizations in her senate campaign, was forced to endorse Barack Obama (as just about every prominent elected official in Minnesota has) because of the tide of public opinion in his favor.