ccouch5,

You’re right, and I’m not trying to sway anyone’s opinion.  But if you scroll up the page and read the posts (not just yours and mine), the sample size may be relatively small, but it appears to me like the Hillary supporters are the ones being the attack dogs.  Now, I don’t know which media outlet(s) you get your news from, but I haven’t seen Obama getting a free pass while Hillary is relentlessly assaulted.  Fox Noise may be bashing her, but they’re going to if she is President, as well, which is more of the same that I’ve said I don’t want to go back to, and I believe most of the country does not want to, either.  

If anything, most of the talking heads have given a nod toward what Barack has accomplished, but they all still seem to proclaim that Hillary is going to be the nominee.  At least, they did until this weekend.  It seems like the Obama campaign is finally being taken seriously.

And that is exactly my point.  By your own words, the “tide has turned,” and that isn’t the media’s doing, it’s the groundswell of grassroots support that is beginning to spread like wildfire.  Let’s be real, Hillary has had an organization in place for years now.  She may have postponed officially throwing her hat into the ring, but her campaign has been going on for years, and she still hasn’t managed to win people over.

The two of them may be in a dead heat, but that fact in and of itself shows the power of the Obama movement.  People have known Hillary Clinton for over 15 years.  I was just down at the shop where I get my ink done a few days ago, and we were discussing the election, and most of them didn’t even know who Barack Obama was just 2 months ago.  One girl that works there is a former New Yorker, and she told me that she hates Hillary.  She said that she would have voted for Rudy, but now she’s planning on voting for Obama if he gets to November.  The more people he reaches with his message, the more people are quickly convinced that he is what this country needs.  The people that are supporters of Hillary have been with her all along, not that that’s a bad thing.

Florida and Michigan are still irrelevant, whether you like it or not.  Should states be able to determine their Primary dates?  Probably.  I can’t say I totally disagree with you on that.  But they could have both moved to Super Tuesday and been part of the tsunami, and had zero consequences.  But in the race to become “more relevant” in determining the nominee, states were moving their elections further and further up the calendar.  It was getting ridiculous, and the DNC finally had to say enough.  It was starting to become a joke that Iowa could end up being the week before Christmas because all of the other states had moved into January.  And Hillary may have garnered 50 percent of the vote in Florida, but that’s still half of the state that voted against her, and Edwards was still in the race at that point.  And in Michigan, she only got 50 percent of the vote, and she was (for all intents and purposes) the only one on the ballot!  What does that say that half of the voters fell into the “anybody but Hillary” camp?

As I stated before, Barack’s strength is that the more people hear him, the stronger his campaign becomes.  The numbers of people voting in Florida, looking at it from a statistical standpoint, is unreliable data.  There are all kinds of lurking variables that could have affected the results because of the fact that everyone knew it was not a valid contest.  And Hillary may not have been campaigning there after the DNC’s decision was handed down, but she had been campaigning there for a very long time before it.  Barack Obama’s campaign hadn’t even gathered a full head of steam by the time that same decision was made.  And she is a household name, for better or for worse, and has been since 1992.  You can downplay that if you want, but I’d call that a little more than a slight advantage, particularly in an early Primary.

Now, as I said earlier, I again don’t disagree with you that a Primary may be more effective than a caucus.  It’s a tradition done to honor the town hall meetings of the 13 colonies, back when everyone still had a direct say in decisions of government.  But, yes, in today’s day and age, it would be better to hold an all day Primary.  I grew up in Arizona, a Primary state, and my experience was much quicker in 1996 and 2000.  But I will say that I felt much more a part of the process in the caucus, and I think that feeling is why they are still used.

HOWEVER, that said, the idea that caucuses favor Barack Obama over Hillary is just you parroting what she herself has been saying to try and spin the results.  Obama supporters have had to stand in the same long lines, the same weather, deal with the same difficulties, and yet he has won.  I read the article links you provided, and it sounds like it was a real mess down there.  That sucks.  But by your own words, you are dismissing the caucus states as “itty bitty,” yet the problems that arose were due to 3-4 times the expected turnout!  So which is it?  And Primaries and ballot elections aren’t perfect, either.  Check out this link for what happened in Denver in 2006:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10302364/detail.html

The absentee balloting is certainly an issue.  But as far as the elements go, I attended an Obama event at the University of Denver a week before Super Tuesday.  The auditorium it was held in had a capacity of 8,000.  An estimated 18,000 showed up.  We stood outside in temperatures in the teens for over four hours just for the chance to get in (which I did, by the way).  The majority of the remaining 10,000 people actually stayed when they couldn’t get in just to hear the broadcast of the event.  And it was people from every demographic imaginable.  I had a delightful conversation with a pair of ladies, one of whom voted for JFK in her first Presidential election in 1960.  We all braved the elements just to hear him speak for an hour, let alone vote for him.  Bill Clinton spoke later that evening at the same building, and there were entire sections left unfilled.  I (unlike some people) do realize Bill and Hillary are separate people, but that’s still a striking difference in turnout.  It makes me wonder about the passion people feel toward their respective candidate.

Now, there are probably people out there that won’t vote for a woman for President.  Not now, not ever.  That’s sad.  But I’ve never said that the ones supporting Hillary would never vote for a black man.  I think, on the whole, our country is better than that on both counts.  If Barack Obama wins the nomination, it is not going to be because of a huge tidal wave of sexist repression.  And it’s not going to be radical fanatics either.  I mean, c’mon.  I know you’re trying to defend your candidate and all, but I don’t think there are a lot of these radicals running around the corn fields of Nebraska and Iowa.  Also, if the only thing she has to say about Obama is that she is more “experienced” than him (which I don’t buy), how is she going to win that argument against John McCain?

And on a personal note, I don’t appreciate the sour grapes “happy as a clam” remark.  I tell my students that you win with class, and you lose with class.  I actually think Hillary would make a great President.  It’s the timing of her candidacy.  We are not ready to go Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton.  In eight years, she would be the frontrunner for my vote.  But we need to move forward for a bit before we can start getting all nostalgic for the Clinton ‘90s.  I’m very familiar with most of the big names and faces in politics, and I think Hillary as VP would be awesome.  I mean, how historic would that ticket be?  But I have taken issue with the cornerstone of her campaign: that she is the “inevitable” candidate.  She does not get to tell me, the voter, who the inevitable candidate is going to be.  

The simple truth is, with the way the delegates are divided, Barack Obama would not be leading at the moment if the only ones voting for him were these states with “very, very small populations.”  It’s a very simple equation: percentage of the vote = percentage of the delegates, which is the way it should be, instead of the winner-take-all system used by the Republicans.

We can go back and forth on numbers all night long, but getting elected President isn’t about numbers.  And it shouldn’t be about counting on the coastal states to carry a candidate over the top, while the entire interior of the country is ignored.  Sure it’s true that there are more people in CA and NY.  But as I pointed out, you can’t win if those two states and Florida are the only ones in your corner.  And what about tomorrow?  What if D.C., Virginia, and Maryland (all part of the megalopolis that is the Eastern seaboard) also go for Obama?  

Barack Obama is not a mistake.  He is a once-in-a-generation candidate, and this country will be better off when he is sitting in the Oval Office.

tat2dteacher

First of all – let’s just make it clear that NO ONE is expecting to win over anyone in this website blog format.  I understand the Obama folks are in a fever and so rhapsodic in their adoration of him, nothing will sway their opinion.  However, I am very appalled at the free ride the media has given Obama, but yet relentlessly and unfairly continue attacking Hillary.  That said – let’s examine the points you’re trying to make.  When you say my arguments are on shaky ground, I can quite easily say the same of yours.  

1) You said - If Hillary can't convince the members of her own party nationwide that she's right for the country, how is she supposed to win in November?  

My response:  As of today these two candidates are in a dead heat, tied almost 50/50. So if I’m using your logic, it’s also TRUE that Obama has been UNABLE able to convince the members of his own party nationwide that he’s right for the country.  So I’d like to ask you, how is OBAMA going to win a general election in November?

2 ) You said:  Florida is irrelevant, because they knew the DNC party rules beforehand.

My response:  I firmly believe the DNC has no right to tell any state HOW or WHEN  they can hold their primary. Many states spend over a million dollars or much more to hold a primary.  If citizens of state spend TAX-DOLLARS to foot the bill so their citizens can vote, the states should make that call, not the DNC.  

3) You said:  Florida isn’t reliable for general info because Obama didn’t get to campaign there.

My response:  NONE of the dem candidates campaigned in Florida, so ALL candidates were on an equal playing field.  Florida voters also knew the DNC was refusing to seat their delegates, yet an astounding 1.8 MILLION democratic voters turned out at the polls.  These people obviously thought their voice should count. In addition, you like to talk about RESOUNDING wins, of the 1.8 MILLION Democratic Florida voters, Clinton RESOUNDINGLY defeated Obama 857,208 to 568,041 or 50% to 33%.  It’s arrogant of anyone to say 1.8 million votes should be nullified.

4)  You said:  Most caucuses are held late in the evening or on the weekends, so the idea that only college kids and the unemployed are the ones turning out is ludicrous.

My response:   My argument that the caucus voting format is unrepresentative of a state’s actual voting population is far from ludicrous.  There are many, many problems with this type of voting procedure, as I mentioned, most notably the time it takes to vote.  I watched the Nevada caucuses on CNN and the coverage of the actual event lasted well over 4 hours, closer to 5.  

That said – while some caucus events can last 2 to 3 hours, people must also stand in line for hours simply waiting for the caucus to start.  In Iowa, KS and other states, people MUST be in line by the designated time, 6pm or 7pm. If they’re late, they are PROHIBITED from voting.  How many people do you know who can only vote at one time of day?

MOST IMPORTANTLY - in the caucus format – there  is no absentee voting. So those people who absolutely can NOT get off work, the elderly who can NOT leave their home, those who are sick or must take care of their children can NOT vote. I live in Missouri but work in Kansas.  If Missouri had held a caucus, instead of a primary, I would have been unable to vote because I had to travel out of town on Feb. 5th.  This also means soldiers from a state holding a caucus that serve in the military also lose their vote.  Caucuses sure don’t seem very representative of a state voters to me.

Lastly - in Kansas, major mess-ups were reported with the dem caucuses that were held. Take a look at the following two news stories.

700 people arrived at a caucus location that could accommodate around 150. People stood outside in the cold for up to 90 minutes before they could get inside. Some parked a quarter-mile or farther away from the building. Some cars drove by without stopping. Other people left without participating.

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_037214317.html

Another story states about the same event…

More than 700 people attended the caucus in Franklin, Kansas. The Democrats were expecting fewer than 200 people..With lines extending into the parking lot, and the RAIN, some people left without standing up and being counted.

http://fourstateshomepage.com/content/fulltext/?cid=10794

How many elderly citizens can wait in line in the freezing cold and rain?

5)  You said:  I have insinuated that the only ones who support Barack Obama are racist, sexist, radical liberals, or people with an agenda.  

My response: I do believe many of the men voting for Obama are sexist and never would vote for a woman.  However, in my post I never said that the people voting for Obama were racist.  What I said is they’re idealistic fanatics who would rather vote for pretty words over proven experience.

Finally - I could continue to break out ALL the states with very, very small populations that voted for Obama to refute your point on that topic as well, but I think it’s apparent the arguments you’ve made are actually the ones on shaky ground.  But quite honestly,  why should you care? The tide has apparently turned in your favor, so you should be happy as a clam.  My point is I believe the Obama supporters this year are making a HUGE mistake.

ccouch5,

I read your post very thoroughly.  I didn't insult you; I'd appreciate it if you did the same.  

I was making two points.  First, in order to win a state in today's political landscape, you have to worry about winning the members of your own party before you can be concerned with crossover Republicans.  And nationally, Obama has had a much better success rate among Independents and Republicans (in the states which have open Primaries).  Now, where you live or work, the people you have been talking to may have very well said they would support Hillary and not Obama.  But countrywide, the opposite has been the case.  There are far more people that won't vote for Hillary Clinton because of WHO SHE IS, not what gender she is.

Florida is irrelevant.  They knew the party rules before they broke them and were punished accordingly.  Had John Edwards won in Florida, we wouldn't be hearing a peep from the Clinton campaign about how the delegates should be seated.  This wasn't a decision that was made after the primary was held, it was made well beforehand.  But Hillary's presumption to the nomination has been very strongly challenged, and she's looking for an edge wherever she can get it.  All candidates agreed not to campaign there in accordance with respect for the DNC's decision, and now Hillary wants to go back on that.  Since you like to point out how you won't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination (even if it IS fair and square), I won't vote for Hillary if the only way she can get the nomination is to inject controversy into the Primaries by taking the Florida and Michigan decisions to court to have them overturned.  I'm sick of controversies in Ohio and Florida leaving the rest of us with a bad taste in our mouths.

And most caucuses are held late in the evening or on the weekends, so the idea that only college kids and the unemployed are the ones turning out is ludicrous.  Colorado's caucus was at 7 P.M.  Would it be better to have a Primary all day so people can turn out whenever is convenient?  Probably.  But a caucus lasts for an hour to an hour-and-a-half, so exactly where are you getting your information from that everyone who caucuses "stands around for 6 to 8 hours?"  Two jobs or not, most people do have the ability to make a 7 P.M. caucus that lasts until 8:30.  So, once again, your argument is on shaky ground.  

In 2004, I was working graveyards at a Super Target and got up at 8 P.M. every night and I also had a second job for a catering company.  I still got up on Election Day and went and cast my ballot during voting hours.  When something is important enough, you find the time.  How many of those same people you're referencing would make the time to be there for their kids' football game or school play?

Finally, the states which are in the Obama win column are: Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, your own Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.  These are states from every corner of the country, and I would bet that the people that live in those states don’t appreciate you dismissing them so cavalierly.  Even in terms of square mileage, Connecticut and Delaware may be “tiny,” but there were over 400,000 votes cast between them.  And in terms of number of people voting, states like Nebraska, Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia all had high turnouts, are traditional “red” states, (which you pointed out, as well) and they all OVERWHELMINGLY went for Obama.  And in case you haven’t noticed, you can’t win in November by only capturing the “big states.”  Just ask Al Gore and John Kerry.  George W. got reelected BECAUSE of all those states which you seem to deem as unimportant.  

Of the states which have held Primaries or caucuses, Barack Obama has won by a fifteen percent margin or more in 14 states.  Hillary has done the same in six states, and among them are Michigan and Florida, which aren’t particularly reliable for general information because of the fact that Obama did not campaign there.  Two of the other states were New York and Arkansas, which I would certainly expect her to win.  It would be a pretty bad sign if either of them wouldn’t be a win for their own Senator and former state First Lady, respectively.

So how can you argue that Hillary has the ability to unite the vote better than Barack?  Do you honestly believe that all of the Democrats in those states are far left liberals?  Is Hillary going to get those electoral votes by having a mass rebellion in the Republican party and getting all of the Republican votes, while these far left radicals go for McCain?  (Incidentally, in her own state, she beat Barack by 17 percent, while he won by 33 percent in Illinois, and both states had about the same number of votes cast.)

I respect your passion for Hillary, and I would never tell you to stop pulling for her.  But for you to insinuate that the only ones who support Barack Obama are racist, sexist, radical liberals, or people with an agenda that is counter to the needs of the American people is exactly the kind of traditional politics that Senator Obama is saying that we can, and should, rise above.